Github user asfgit closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/632
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabl
Github user revans2 commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/632#issuecomment-123243525
+1 looks good to me
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this fea
Github user bourneagain commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/632#issuecomment-122483857
Thanks for the comments, I understand the implication now and have changed
the code accordingly.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email a
Github user revans2 commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/632#issuecomment-121692328
@bourneagain I really don't like the idea of pulling data out of the call
stack to check for arguments. If we are going to check for arguments lets
check for them in eac
GitHub user bourneagain opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/632
STORM-918 Storm CLI could validate arguments/print usage
Storm commands that mandate proper args to be passed would now throw
the function's doc string as help rather than exiting out with err
