On 3/15/19 4:06 PM, Schanzenbach, Martin wrote: > No it was not. > I am pretty sure that instead of calling gnunet-uri as a binary from a binary > is pretty nonsensical.
Why? I see nothing wrong with that. It's not like this matters for performance or that starting gnunet-uri has any other real disadvantage here that I can think of. > Instead, gnunet-qr should just do what gnunet-uri does with the uri. > If we need to share code between them, fine, then refactor. But imitating > python behavior here is not good style. > Hence the CLI tools should be built using GNUNET_PROGRAM_run (). Ok, now I undestand why you suggested GNUNET_PROGRAM_run(), but I don't see this as "Python" behavior, more like UNIX behavior ;-). >> On 15. Mar 2019, at 06:10, Christian Grothoff <christ...@grothoff.org> wrote: >> >> Signed PGP part >> On 3/13/19 6:25 PM, Hartmut Goebel wrote: >>> Martin wrote: >>>> The first thing you should do it use GNUNET_PROGRAM*. >> >> Actually, that advice was slightly off: as you don't want/need the >> scheduler, you don't need GNUNET_PROGRAM_run() but just GNUNET_GETOPT_* >> for gnunet-qr. >> >> >> >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ GNUnet-developers mailing list GNUnet-developers@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnunet-developers
