Thanks you all for your input! I will go for the “best effort” with warning approach then. Regarding the additional flag, I suggest opening a separate JIRA in the future, if such a use-case should arise.
Regards Florian > On Aug 7, 2017, at 08:48, Chinmay Kolhatkar <chin...@datatorrent.com> wrote: > > +1 for the best effort with warnings. > > On Sun, Aug 6, 2017 at 9:19 PM, Pradeep Kumbhar <prad...@datatorrent.com> > wrote: > >> +1 for the best effort with warnings as default behavior and an optional >> flag for Validate & Fail (Ajay's suggestion) >> >> >> On Sun, Aug 6, 2017 at 12:14 PM, Mohit Jotwani <mo...@datatorrent.com> >> wrote: >> >>> +1 for best efforts with warning logs. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Mohit >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>>> On Aug 6, 2017, at 12:42 AM, Vlad Rozov <vro...@apache.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> I don't see need for the flag either. The output of the command should >>> be what applications were stopped/shutdown and which one were not (for >> any >>> reason). >>>> >>>> Thank you, >>>> >>>> Vlad >>>> >>>>> On 8/4/17 23:21, Sanjay Pujare wrote: >>>>> +1 for best effort. I don't think a flag to offer alternative behavior >>> is >>>>> of much value. >>>>> >>>>>> On Aug 5, 2017 11:31 AM, "AJAY GUPTA" <ajaygit...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> It could be useful to have a flag and let user decide the best >>> approach fit >>>>>> for him. We can have the default behaviour as best-effort with >> support >>> for >>>>>> Validate and fail via flag. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ajay >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, 5 Aug 2017 at 8:33 AM, Bhupesh Chawda < >> bhup...@datatorrent.com >>>> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> +1 for best effort with warnings. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ~ Bhupesh >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Aug 4, 2017 23:46, "Pramod Immaneni" <pra...@datatorrent.com> >>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I would prefer "Best effort" with warnings for the ones that are >>>>>> invalid. >>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 9:42 AM, Florian Schmidt < >>>>>> flor...@datatorrent.com >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hey everyone, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I am currently extending the ApexCli so that the `shutdown-app` >>>>>> command >>>>>>>>> supports the both the appId and the appName as an argument (see >>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/APEXCORE-767 < >>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/APEXCORE-767>) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> During the review of the pull request, the following discussion >> came >>>>>>> up: >>>>>>>>> When a user passes multiple appNames / appIds to the shutdown >>> command >>>>>>>>> (e.g. shutdown-app appA appB appC) and e.g. appB does not exists, >>>>>> which >>>>>>>> one >>>>>>>>> of the two approaches do we want to go: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "Best effort”: Try to shutdown all those apps where we can find an >>>>>> app >>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>> the provided appName or appId. Print a warning if an app cannot >>>>>> found. >>>>>>>>> “Validate and Fail”: Validate that all apps can be found by the >>>>>>> provided >>>>>>>>> appId / appName. Do not run the command if one of the apps can’t >> be >>>>>>> found >>>>>>>>> This decision would probably influence the behavior of other CLI >>>>>>> commands >>>>>>>>> in the future as well, so that they all behave in a consistent >> way. >>>>>>> What >>>>>>>>> are your opinions? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Florian >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> _____________________________________________________________ >> *Regards,* >> *Pradeep * >> *Kumbhar* >> *, *QA Engineer >> , >> e >> : prad...@datatorrent.com | >> m >> : 9168978932 | >> t >> : @daemon12 >> 7 >> >> >> www.datatorrent.com >> >> >> | >> >> | >> apex.apache.org >> >>
