+1 yep :) That way we can keep most of old options intact
Srinath On 10/9/06, Sanjiva Weerawarana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, 2006-10-09 at 07:54 -0400, Srinath Perera wrote: > Hi AJith,All; > As far as I understand > > 1) no options client side only > 2) -s server side > 3) -sd -ss service side discriptions, this only work with -ss > 4) -g all, but no service.xml .. So I put -g -sd ..still none becouse > -sd only works with -ss .. so -g -ss and -sd Ouch. > Sorry but I feel this is far too complex. shall we change the options > for 1.1? for example (Or do we need to me backward compatible with the > tool options?) > > -GClient or nothing for Client > -GServer for server with service.xml > -GAll for everything > -GTest all with test case How about: - -c or nothing for client - -s for service side with services.xml - -g for both client and server (both the above basically) - -g -t for all and test case That is, introduce a -t argument for test case generation. By test case we mean what exactly .. a stub?? In that case its only meaningful for a server side case anyway. > Do we have use case for generating server side code without a service.xml file ? > Do we have use case for generating service.xml without server side > code? (we could at least assume -ss given -sd) +1. So basically same as your proposal except use option names that are closer to what we have now. Sanjiva. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- ============================ Srinath Perera: Indiana University, Bloomington http://www.cs.indiana.edu/~hperera/ http://www.bloglines.com/blog/hemapani --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
