2011/10/6 Jacek Cała <jacek.c...@gmail.com> > Agree, however, I thought that JSON API was the solution for linking >
Well, it's "a" solution, not "the" solution. But it's "the" only solution for the time being ;). > external apps to fossil, and hence having ability to call fossil > directly would make the API redundant. That is also my thinking. With this in place, a "librification" rewrite/refactor of fossil becomes "less necessary." (Though there are still certainly many good arguments for such a rewrite, but we've beaten that horse to death several times already, so this is not a call for comments on the topic ;).) i've learned through implementing the JSON API that this will actually give us a great many options i had never really considered. e.g. someone suggested reading POST data from a file/stdin in CLI mode. Adding that ability was easy to do (30 lines or so of code[1], plus some touch-ups in CLI argument-handling code in other places) and indeed gives us a new way to interact with a local fossil binary. i do not yet have it running, but i've started work on a prototype shell for fossil which uses this approach, calling either a local fossil binary or sending the commands to a remote repo. [1] = http://www.fossil-scm.org/index.html/artifact/00d07d18aa32de91151831823347836cd5015aa8?ln=1055-1080 -- ----- stephan beal http://wanderinghorse.net/home/stephan/
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
