I know it is lots of work and I don't want to see extra code as well but there is one thing that I don't understand.
"And no, dropping support for the Windows-style command-line syntax is not an option" Why? This have not been explained, or i totally missed it. I've read about the nice +feature -feature etc but not really why we need to have the windows options at all. On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 1:11 AM, Marc-André Moreau < marcandre.mor...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > About supporting one of the two syntaxes at once: no way. Many of you are > not happy of the changes because it means you'll have to adapt your > scripts. If we were to support one syntax on Windows, and one syntax on > non-Windows systems, it would effectively mean that a cross-platform script > invoking xfreerdp on Linux and wfreerdp on Windows would need to produce > two different command lines. And no, dropping support for the Windows-style > command-line syntax is not an option. I don't know if you have realized it > at this point, but I'm the guy stuck in the middle trying to please > everyone at the same time, so please comment in consequence on this. > > About documentation: we can simply choose one syntax to be used in most > documentation, solving the "nightmare". > > About parser bugs: I'm the one who unit tests his code the most, and the > parser I've written is not an exception to this. Of course, more tests can > be written, but this is nothing that can't be handled. Also, the new parser > does automated validation according to the given syntax, and has a list of > error codes that it can return. Again, this can always be improved on, it's > nothing set in stone. I'd rather have you guys comment on edge cases you > might have found that would be worth handling. The more you can point out, > the more I can not only fix, but also ensure functionality through improved > tests. Making this parser rock solid is not an issue. Now if parser bugs > are syntax specific, there's one easy way to test this: parse the same > commands in both syntaxes, compare the output, write many test cases like > this. > > About making code bigger, really? Keeping backwards compatibility keeps the > code bigger as well, and it doesn't seem an issue if that's what you > want... > > On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 4:22 PM, Otavio Salvador <ota...@ossystems.com.br > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Marc-André Moreau < > > marcandre.mor...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> The current syntax detection method is very naive and can simply be > >> replaced by a much better one that will work with much more accuracy. > For > >> instance, we know what the expected options are, one very accurate way > >> would be to parse the argument vector twice, one for each syntax, and > >> count > >> the number of recognized options. This way, the parser would effectively > >> know what is an option and what is a value, avoiding potential conflicts > >> with values like what you pointed out. It's nothing that can't be fixed, > >> yet you speak like there is no good solution to this problem. It's a > >> no-brainer. > >> > >> Also, I can guarantee you this is a one-time change. I have been meaning > >> to > >> do it for a very long time but never got the time to do it. Now is the > >> time, in preparation for the 1.1 release. > >> > >> I don't mind backwards compatibility for a period of time, but let's > face > >> it, I know I'm going to have to do all the work necessary for this. Feel > >> free to prove me wrong, but I'm kind of disillusioned right now. > > > > > > I don't like to Windows-like parsing but I also think we shouldn't keep > > both supported. It has many cons: > > > > * makes documentation a nightmare (you need to always explain it twice) > > * makes support a nightmare (we'll need to be able to understand two > > command lines when reading issue requests) > > * makes code more subtle to bugs (some bug might be parser specific) > > * makes code bigger for no reason > > > > From my point of view, it can be done (as I did for rdesktop) using an > > wrapper. > > > > One thing I dislike a lot is such a big change in a short version > > increment. This is something I don't like so my vote is to choose a > > command line format, stick to it and bump version to 2.0. > > > > We can, add an commandline option which works in 2.X only and make easy > > for abstraction code to detect which version is being used. Besides that > I > > think is buying problems and work for ourselves... > > > > Regards, > > > > > > -- > > Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems > > E-mail: ota...@ossystems.com.br http://www.ossystems.com.br > > Mobile: +55 53 9981-7854 http://projetos.ossystems.com.br > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > LogMeIn Rescue: Anywhere, Anytime Remote support for IT. Free Trial > Remotely access PCs and mobile devices and provide instant support > Improve your efficiency, and focus on delivering more value-add services > Discover what IT Professionals Know. Rescue delivers > http://p.sf.net/sfu/logmein_12329d2d > _______________________________________________ > Freerdp-devel mailing list > Freerdp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freerdp-devel > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ LogMeIn Rescue: Anywhere, Anytime Remote support for IT. Free Trial Remotely access PCs and mobile devices and provide instant support Improve your efficiency, and focus on delivering more value-add services Discover what IT Professionals Know. Rescue delivers http://p.sf.net/sfu/logmein_12329d2d _______________________________________________ Freerdp-devel mailing list Freerdp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freerdp-devel
