On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 4:30 PM, Ben Coman <b...@openinworld.com> wrote:
> p...@highoctane.be wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 4:06 PM, Sean P. DeNigris <s...@clipperadams.com >> <mailto:s...@clipperadams.com>> wrote: >> >> EstebanLM wrote >> > is cool. >> > I would like to explore the possibility to replace our command >> line parser >> > with getopt. You know… is more compatible at the end :) >> >> I find the implementation of our command line handlers very >> confusing. It >> seems like it grew organically from a smaller idea and the design >> got out of >> control. There are many assumptions that can make it hard to extend, >> especially to combine multiple options, as Ben and I discovered when >> implementing the "don't run startup scripts" handler. It would be >> nice to >> revisit starting from a behavioral specification. >> >> >> Well, what makes you say that? >> The core CommandLineHandler itself is pretty generic and can do a lot of >> things. >> >> Then, yeah, what is under is quite varied. But that's to be expected when >> trying out "new tech". >> >> I've been making one of my own here for a given project with about 20-30 >> commands and I had to put in some structure indeed. >> > > Is that part available somewhere that can be reviewed ? > You mean? CommandLineHandler and CommandLineArguments is in the base image. Phil > cheers -ben > > >
