+1 for simplifying the parsing and using spring shell. -Dan
On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Real Wes <thereal...@outlook.com> wrote: > That would be a really good implementation since it would keep production > code from relying on the formatting of the GFSH return message. If you did > —output=json, then the call to the GfshParser could possibly involve > non-internal classes, which would be even nicer. > > > On Nov 4, 2016, at 4:31 PM, Anthony Baker <aba...@pivotal.io> wrote: > > > > Wes, I think it would be interesting if we added a new option > ‘--output=json’ to better handle the use case you described. Then you > could pipe the gfsh command through a json parser like jq. > > > > Anthony > > > >> On Nov 4, 2016, at 9:51 AM, Real Wes <thereal...@outlook.com> wrote: > >> > >> I call the GFSH Parser from code and rely on the formatting of the > return message to determine the response. So I’d like to see that code as > encapsulated in one place. > >> > >>> On Nov 4, 2016, at 11:38 AM, Jinmei Liao <jil...@pivotal.io> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> We have several jira issues related to gfsh parsing (GEODE-1598, > >>> GEODE-1912). After spending some time understanding how the parsing > works, > >>> I found out we have three components intertwined together all trying > to do > >>> parsing: Gfsh, JoptSimple and Spring Shell. I started an experiment by > >>> getting rid of Gfsh and JoptSimple parsing and only using Spring > Shell. The > >>> outcome is I am able to maintain the current parsing and tabbing > completion > >>> capabilities (and fix a few bugs) by removing 40+ files. The only > >>> difference I see so far lies in the help and hint messages. It seems > the > >>> main reason we are using these home backed Gfsh parsing is to provide > more > >>> readable help messages. Below are the differences: > >>> > >>> Using Spring Shell's provided help: > >>> > >>> Using Gfsh Parsing with JoptSimple: > >>> > >>> > >>> I do like the outcome of the latter, but added complexity of the code > is > >>> too expensive to bear. So I am asking the community how important it > is to > >>> maintain the current style of help? Can we do with the cheaper way by > just > >>> using whatever provided by the libraries? > >>> > >>> Cheers > >>> > >>> Jinmei > >>> > >> > > > >
