> A well thought out design for new layer 2 tools would ensure > that -p for both dladm and ipmpstat meant the same thing. > You might want to take another look at the way you've designed > the CLI for ipmpstat and think about a couple of things: > > - does it need to have long option names like dladm, etc? > or conversely, why doesn't it need to?
If we designed it like dladm (with verb-noun subcommands), everything would be a "show" subcommand (e.g., "show-interfaces" rather than "-i"). ipmpstat is a status command, and has more in common with netstat than with dladm. While the netstat command isn't a model of usability, most administrators are used to it. > - if there are mutually exclusive options (such as -a/-i/-g/-t/-p), > should they be individual options or sub-options? (e.g -x probe) Those shouldn't be thought of as options, but rather output modes. Think netstat -r vs. netstat -i. > - how the behaviour of various command line options for ipmpstat > can be made to have similar behaviour to the same letters > elsewhere (less confusion.) And I've tried to do that. For instance, the behavior of -n matches the behavior of netstat -n. -- meem
