On Monday 12 May 2014 10:15 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Barry Warsaw writes:
> Also as a general rule, I think we want just one level of
> subcommand, so that `mmclient show --list` would be the template.
> (That's open to discussion.)
I wonder about this in the context of argparse and the command line,
because argparse makes a strong distinction (and corresponding
associations) between *required positional* arguments and *optional*
keyword-like arguments (ie, any argument with leading dashes).
Positional arguments *can be made* optional, also be supplied
with a default value, in case the argument was not specified.
In my opinion, I don't like the `one level of sub command` as
neither the user nor the developer is benefited of such a design.
The user ends up typing the same strings as before plus an extra
`--` followed by the same set of arguments.
And from the angle of implementation, each of the *scope* name
would require a different optional argument, followed by a set of
if-else's to land at the right *scope* to manage.
Further there is a possibility of the user specifying multiple scopes,
mmclient show --list --listname "l...@domain.org" --domain
which makes the outcome dependent on the order in which the
if-else's are written. This is a serious bug when actions like `delete`
are being used.
In the model Rajeev has shown so far, the "scope" argument (list,
domain, user) hasn't been optional.
I assumed this model was OK since I had received no comments
against that part, since the beginning. I strongly believe that it is quite
effective to mention the scope this way.
> mmclient set --key <name> --value <value>
This seems unnecessarily verbose on the one hand, and to not actually
correspond to an actual use case, on the other: there's no scope
mentioned. I feel the scope should be mandatory, even if it's
sitewide:
mmclient set --site-wide --key CAN_PERSONALIZE --value No
mmclient set --domain=python.org --key CAN_PERSONALIZE --value Yes
(after the first one, the second would be an error, I guess, but in
other cases a site-wide setting would be interpreted as a default).
Got a bit confused with the use of *scope* in this context.
Anyways, if the scope is not specified, apply the setting on a
default *scope*, `default=site-wide` makes sense, while others
do not.
I guess this horse has already bolted the barn, but I wonder about a
syntax like
mmclient set --site-wide --key PERSONALIZE --value Permitted
mmclient set --domain=python.org --key PERSONALIZE --value Permitted
mmclient set --list=mailman-us...@python.org --key PERSONALIZE --value No
for resource constraining settings. (Permitted could probably be an
alias for False.)
Sorry about the horse :). As I said, I assumed it was OK, and It was a
mistake from my part not to discuss the command syntax before
working on it.
Also, the above is still possible with the current version. The *scope*
positional argument can
be made to default to a *scope* that has no solid structure, `settings` for
example. More generally, it could be defaulted to a `general` scope, managed
by a `General` class, that inherits from multiple classes like `Settings`,
`Backup/restore` etc.
And as the final word, I am ready to change the command style,
mmclient <action> <scope> <arguments>
if there is some serious disagreement with it.
Steve
_______________________________________________
Mailman-Developers mailing list
Mailman-Developers@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-developers
Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3
Searchable Archives:
http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-developers%40python.org/
Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-developers/archive%40jab.org
Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9
