On Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 09:36:49AM +1000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hi Henri, > > > What do you think? Is the cli2 package clearly superior to the cli[1] > > package?
I think so. There doesn't seem to be any advantage to cli[1], cli2 is better designed and the avalon code appears to be simpler (I havn't actually used it). > > Should we dump the old one, test the issues reported against > > cli[1] that are now fixed in cli2 and move on; or should we dump the > > cli2 package and stick with the cli one? > > This is a tricky question, because people already use the current CLI > API. The CLI2 API is quite different, so people would have to migrate > their code to the new API, and I can imagine that a lot of people would > be loathe to do that. > > I think we should investigate the possibility of having CLI as a façade > to the (superior) CLI2 package. This could ease migration problems, as > well as solve the outstanding parsing issues. > > My vote is to move towards CLI2, but do it in such a way that we can > avoid disturbing users of CLI as much as possible. > My gut instinct is that it shouldn't be too difficult to effectively reimplement cli1 using cli2 as I havn't encountered anything that can be done in cli but not cli2. Generally, I think we should be moving away from cli1 whether that is by simply deprecating it or reimplementing it as a facade Andrew Shirley --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
