Comments on: PowerShell: Providers vs Cmdlets http://dalelane.co.uk/blog/?p=235 fan of all things mobile, father of small girls, IBM code monkey, youth charity trustee... Mon, 06 Sep 2010 19:26:49 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Brent InRaleigh http://dalelane.co.uk/blog/?p=235&cpage=1#comment-100654 Brent InRaleigh Tue, 19 May 2009 22:40:56 +0000 http://dalelane.co.uk/blog/?p=235#comment-100654 Cmdlets where and are the correct direction. I my world: Cmdlets = scripts both local and remote systems. Providers = local. A MQ Provider would have been a local .NET RUNMQSC Cmdlets + calling .NET base class directly = Rule the (IT) World. Good Choice. BM in Raleigh NC Cmdlets where and are the correct direction.
I my world:
Cmdlets = scripts both local and remote systems.
Providers = local.
A MQ Provider would have been a local .NET RUNMQSC

Cmdlets + calling .NET base class directly = Rule the (IT) World.

Good Choice.

BM in Raleigh NC

]]> By: Simon http://dalelane.co.uk/blog/?p=235&cpage=1#comment-99477 Simon Fri, 12 Sep 2008 15:45:32 +0000 http://dalelane.co.uk/blog/?p=235#comment-99477 I feel very strongly that AD should have a provider, whether it has cmdlets or not - it's intuitive to navigate a directory (LDAP) using directory (file system) commands - it seems like a no-brainer to me. I'm not sure it's so obvious with MQ, from what I've seen of it, so far, but it wouldreduce the learning curve to an admin coming to MQ from PowerShell. Your compromise looks quite sensible. I feel very strongly that AD should have a provider, whether it has cmdlets or not – it’s intuitive to navigate a directory (LDAP) using directory (file system) commands – it seems like a no-brainer to me. I’m not sure it’s so obvious with MQ, from what I’ve seen of it, so far, but it wouldreduce the learning curve to an admin coming to MQ from PowerShell. Your compromise looks quite sensible.

]]>