On Jan 27, 2014, at 10:27 AM, James Peach <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I do want to echo Nick's thoughts about the purpose of traffic_shell though.
> What's it really for? Does the need for it still exist? Would it make sense
> to roll its useful parts into traffic_line?
A lot of traffic_shell (most?) I don’t think belong in traffic_line. For
example, all the show: commands. I’ve added the following commands to
traffic_line so far, I’m still looking for what else might be useful:
—alarms - shows all alarm events which have not been acknowledged
—clear_alarms [all | #num | name] - Clear the selected alarm(s)
—status - shows the proxy server state (just like show:status)
A lot of traffic_shell just encapsulates two existing traffic_line commands (-r
and -s -v). I don’t (personally) feel these are useful to add into
traffic_line, but we could if we wanted to. Instead, I think a script like the
Perl version of traffic_shell’s show: commands is better.
I’d also iterate that traffic_shell was intended as a scripting environment,
using it in e.g. scripts with #!/usr/bin/traffic_shell. It exposes most of the
ts/mgmtapi.h C-APIs to the TCL language. Seeing that TCL is pretty much an
obsolete language, I don’t feel that it’s worthwhile to retain this
functionality. But if it is, then traffic_shell needs to stay for now.
Cheers,
— Leif
