ksqldb CLI should use ksqlDB prompt

[rmoff]

ksqlDB 0.6

The ksql> prompt should be ksqlDB>

[agavra]

cc @derekjn - @rmoff, we had discussed this and decided to remain with ksql>. If we think of ksql as the language of ksqlDB, then it's okay and it doesn't have the extra chars (similarly to how postgres command is psql, not postgresDB)

[rmoff]

Are you saying we don't want to change the prompt? Or we're just saying that it's ok as it is for the moment with the reasoning given

If we think of ksql as the language of ksqlDB

[rmoff]

the two extra DB characters aren't going to break the bank. We'll save on screen pixel energy use from having ksql in lowercase instead of uppercase too ;-) ;-)

[derekjn]

@rmoff we don’t plan to change the prompt. The issue is that it becomes a slippery slope: do we also change config parameter names? Do we change every occurrence of “ksql”? And would the resulting disruption be worth it to users?

As @agavra alluded to, it’s very common for a system like this to have a long and short name. e.g. Mongo/MongoDB, Postgres/PostgreSQL, etc., and in our case I don’t think that doing this meaningfully detracts from the UX.

[blueedgenick]

Let's please not do this "just because". I seem to recall that using sql/plus still gives me a "sql>" prompt rather than one that says "Oracle:>" ;) Other systems take a variety of approaches, there's no overwhelming convention I can see. (Personal favorite is the way SQLServer sets the prompt to be the name of the schema you are in but we don't have that concept yet)

…

On Fri, Dec 6, 2019, 9:27 AM Derek Nelson ***@***.***> wrote: @rmoff <https://github.com/rmoff> we don’t plan to change the prompt. The issue is that it becomes a slippery slope: do we also change config parameter names? Do we change every occurrence of “ksql”? And would the resulting disruption be worth it to users? As @agavra <https://github.com/agavra> alluded to, it’s very common for a system like this to have a long and short name. e.g. Mongo/MongoDB, Postgres/PostgreSQL, etc., and in our case I don’t think that doing this meaningfully detracts from the UX. — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#4071?email_source=notifications&email_token=ABCXJIGJJFHNRTSXJTEHFPDQXKDP7A5CNFSM4JW22B52YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOEGEZG4Q#issuecomment-562664306>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABCXJIEWFRHNNRYCLW6UGX3QXKDP7ANCNFSM4JW22B5Q> .

[derekjn]

Personal favorite is the way SQLServer sets the
prompt to be the name of the schema you are in but we don't have that
concept yet

This is a great way to use the prompt and is what Postgres does as well (prompt is the name of the database you're connected to). Introducing a schema/namespace abstraction is on our radar: #3966.