"Mark Overgaard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 07/26/2007 02:16:32 PM:
> Thanks, Renier. Architecturally, this line of thinking is probably
> fine. However, we have made considerable investment in the current
> hpi_shell interface in terms of documenting it for our customers and
> using it as a basis for functional tests. What is your thinking
> regarding compatibility with the current interface in any new
> packaging that gets done?
The idea is to make hpi_shell work the same interface-wise as in its
current incarnation for users. The changes would be treating it as a
separate package, and also changing the CLI engine used to use python.
Would you consider making your hpi_shell documentation and tests a part of
OpenHPI?
>
> I’m thinking it would be good for us to do a phone chat with you to
> cover this topic as well as getting updated on the state of the
> OpenHPI project in general, since we’re putting considerable energy
> into this topic these days. Would such a session be feasible for you?
That's fine with me. I'll let you set something up.
--Renier
>
> Regards,
>
> Mark
>
>
> From: Renier Morales [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 10:28 AM
> To: 'Serge Zhukov'
> Cc: Mark Overgaard; [email protected]
> Subject: hpi_shell
>
> Hello,
>
> Wanted to ask you, as I know you have used hpi_shell before. Any
> objections to separating hpi_shell from OpenHPI into its own
> package? And any objections about transforming this into a shell
> running on top of python?
>
> Saludos,
>
> --Renier-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop.
Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/
_______________________________________________
Openhpi-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openhpi-devel
