Peter Memishian wrote: > > > To bring this back to where it started, the issues are (for PSARC): > > > - given that there will be future work that wants to generate > > > parsable output, do we need an opinion written up (for this case) > > > to serve as the notice of our decision about it or is it sufficient > > > to just cite this case? > > > > The bottom line is that we've written a few "kitchen sink" utilities. > > That's the first less than ideal thing that we did. Given where we > > are, I'm not inclined to approve this case as anything else than a > > "one off". > > As per the subject line, we're really only looking for approval with > dladm. As per the case "Overview" section, we (Solaris Networking) intend > to follow the dladm approach with future networking CLIs -- but each of > those will have their own case and stand on their own.
I think you mean to say "we (this case)" or "we (this project)", didn't you? If this case is only being targetted at dladm then it has no binding on what anyone else is doing, be it in Solaris Networking, or the OpenSolaris networking community or any other project. > That said, I don't > see an issue with gently encouraging others who may be inventing a new > parseable CLI to follow the simple approach outlined here. > To encourage others to follow this case "just because it seems simple" doesn't bode well. What happens when someone has output that has |'s in it and decides to use ";" as their separator? (Similar to how this case appears to prefer "|" over ":".) Darren
