On 10/07/2015 12:24 PM, Dusty Mabe wrote: > Hi, > > In the container-tools team we have been having discussions about the > lifecycle of an atomicapp. We have essentially decided that there are > more verbs that we want to use than those that are defined in the Generic > Labels [1]. Vasek has proposed an idea [2] that I think would be useful > for atomic cli to support. > > The idea is more or less to support an application developer being > able to define his/her own verbs to allow the user to call from atomic > CLI. Since it is up to the application to define them they don't have > to make sense in any other application. The application could still > implement INSTALL/RUN/UNINSTALL etc, but they could define more that > would enable them to provide a better user experience. > > In Vasek's suggestion he proposed that the > io.projectatomic.atomic.cmd.unpack=.* > label would correspond to `atomic unpack`. I would prefer that the > label scheme (whatever it is) actually map to a top level primitive in > atomic cli so that the user knows what he/she is doing. For example, > rather than `atomic unpack <appname>` it would map to `atomic exelabel unpack > <appname>` > or `atomic runlabel unpack <appname>`. > > Regardless of the specific implementation, which can be decided later, > I think a mechanism for arbitrary run labels would be useful. I can > propose this to [1] and eventually send a PR to atomic cli if this is > useful. > > - Dusty > > [1] - https://github.com/projectatomic/ContainerApplicationGenericLabels > [2] - https://gist.github.com/goern/d8910ba7a10ff26bc8f2#gistcomment-1565065 > Should their be a way to list these secondary labels?
Should we define a hierarchy of labels? How does the user discover this label? Should we have a atomic help which could read a label to describe this advanced behaviour?
