On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 3:14 PM, Jim Jagielski <[email protected]> wrote: > Well, it looks like the format has been changing... so I > can see concerns. > > But really, I'm not sure why it needs to be so > "standardized" esp when it's mucking around with > stuff it has no reason to. It's adding a line, so > I don't see the reason why it has to "recreate" the > file in the 1st place. Either it finds where a new > proxy needs to go and adds it there, or find the > line that needs to be updated, and modified *that* > line, or it finds the line it needs to delete > and trashes it. > > If a tool is updating a file which is also mostly edited > by humans, it should be pretty lax about enforcing > a "format" imo. If it doesn't need to mess with > a line, it should leave it alone or output it > exactly as it was read...
Originally, this was a sorted index of files in the associated proxies-received directory. I'm OK with the idea of requirements changing and/or this being a bug in the first place. None of us like the idea of single maintainer tools. In this case, what we have here is a small, standalone tool. After the dust settles (i.e., after the meeting is over), anybody want to take a crack at improving it? Note: improving it could mean rewriting in Python and moving to Steve, I don't care. What I do care about is having multiple maintainers. - Sam Ruby >> On Mar 21, 2016, at 3:02 PM, Sam Ruby <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I think having a proxy web interface continues to be a good idea; but we >> need to come to a common understanding of the data format. Too late for >> this meeting, but I'm inclined to change to a JSON format for future >> meetings. >> >> Here's the relevant lines: >> >> https://github.com/apache/whimsy/blob/c5329abf90371ff2377bcb6f087abb59605bcea4/www/members/proxy.cgi#L163 >> >> Most importantly, lines that do NOT match / \S.*\(\S+\)$/ are lost. >> >> This is clearly problematic. >> >> Suggestions welcome! >> >> - Sam Ruby >
