ARTEMIS-5168 Improve remoting to brokers from Artemis shell

[AntonRoskvist]

This PR adds back connect + disconnect to shell
Changes prompt to reflect if connected to a broker (and which one)
It also captures "Ctrl + D" to return to shell if issued when connected to a broker (instead of exiting). If not connected it exits as usual.

[clebertsuconic]

I really liked this...

can I ask a small change.. if you can't do it.. I will do it later...

if the user is null.. just don't set the user

If I have a broker without an user (anonymous user).. it's currently showing null@tcp://localhost:61616 >

I think it should use just tcp://localhost:61616 >

although the check that you have on the Exception would need to be different.. perhaps just use a boolean to connected instead.

t's currently showing this, when null:

null@tcp://localhost:61616 >

[clebertsuconic]

I had commented on the wrong PR.. I just posted here correctly now..

@AntonRoskvist let me know if you can change the null, and the exception handling to use some boolean state rather than the string of the connection / prompt.

[AntonRoskvist]

Thanks @gemmellr

@clebertsuconic I actually had it slightly differently at one point where I set the user as "anonymous@tcp://..." referencing "--allow-anonymous" from the create command. I opted against it because just prior the shell will log this:
getActionContext().out.println("CLI connected to broker " + brokerURL + ", user:" + user);
(where the user also displays as null in this case)

I can go with either but I feel like that logging should be consistent and also log "user: anonymous" or no user at all.

I am fine making the change either way but it might be a day or two before I can get to it (hectic schedule)

[clebertsuconic]

I'm fine with anonymous@...

I just didn't like the null

to me either anonymous@URL. or not mention the URL is fine... it's just cosmetics ... I like either way.

[clebertsuconic]

I get your point with logging... but I think since this prompt will be there all the time.. it makes it kind of ugly :)

We can fix the logging as well.. I will wait your PR to see where you get first.

[gemmellr]

I'm fine with anonymous@...

I just didn't like the null

to me either anonymous@URL. or not mention the URL is fine... it's just cosmetics ... I like either way.

I'd be inclined not to assume and display 'anonymous' as a user. As you can set the URL, you might for example be using client certificates, and then saying anonymous would just be incorrect.

[clebertsuconic]

@gemmellr : hmmm... good point... so lets just not display the user at all.... just the URL if the username is not set.

I wouldn't fix the logging.. as for the logging null is the correct output.