I agrees that overloading the “file” option seems like a bad idea. As an alternative to separate commands, what about mutually exclusive options, ‘—file’ and ‘—dir’?
If you go for implementing the new functionality as a separate command, I would suggest calling the gfsh commands: “export data-parallel” and “import data-parallel" > On Aug 22, 2017, at 11:32 AM, Nick Reich <nre...@pivotal.io> wrote: > > Team, > > I am working on exposing the parallel export/import of snapshots through > gfsh and would appreciate input on the best approach to adding to / > updating the existing interface. > > Currently, ExportDataCommand and ImportDataCommand take a region name, a > member to run the command on, and a file location (that must end in .gfd). > Parallel import and export require a directory location instead of a single > file name (as there can be multiple files and need for uniquely named > files). It is possible to add a parallel flag and have the meaning of the > "file" parameter be different depending on that flag, but that seems overly > confusing to me. I am instead leaning towards creating new commands (e.g. > ParallelExportDataCommand) that has a "directory" parameter to replace > "file", but is otherwise identical in usage to the existing commands. > > Do others have different views or approaches to suggest?
