I think it should have a scripted and interactive mode.
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 12:42 PM, Pid <[email protected]> wrote: > On 1/11/11 8:24 PM, msacks wrote: >> Kitty was originally a command-line only utility. -1 on the GUI components. >> If others want it or have a need for it, thats fine, but I suggest we >> toss it for now. > > Opinions on non-interactive mode? > > > p > > >> On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 12:01 PM, Pid <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On 1/11/11 5:06 PM, msacks wrote: >>>> Shall we remote main.Groovy? or is this going to be the entry point >>>> for modules in the future? >>> >>> A static entry point is a good idea, but it might be nicer to call it >>> 'Kitty'. >>> >>> There's a ref to a GUI - I suggest that Kitty is abstract and extended >>> by KittyCLI and KittyGUI, putting config loading & command parsing in >>> the parent class. >>> >>> We can use CliBuilder to parse initial arguments... >>> >>> >>> p >>> >>> >>>> On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 5:53 AM, Pid <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> On 1/4/11 10:53 PM, msacks wrote: >>>>>> At this point, Main.Groovy doesn't actually appear to be serving any >>>>>> functional purpose. >>>>>> I do see config = new ConfigSlurper().parse(new >>>>>> File('kittyConfig.groovy')).toString() >>>>>> which appears to be parsing a configuration to be passed to >>>>>> CmdShell.groovy, but it doesn't look like this is being done at the >>>>>> moment. >>>>>> >>>>>> Can someone confirm? >>>>> >>>>> Yes, I can confirm that. >>>>> >>>>> The main method in CmdShell is the one being called to start up Kitty. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> p >>>>> >>> >>> > >
