> > > 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?
We as in "John and I", the submitters of the case. > 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 ":".) Huh? The conclusion was already reached that the choice of separator is immaterial since it will be quoted anyway. Pursuant to that, John and I agreed to use ":" because it already has precedent with zoneadm(1M) (and has been a Unix separator character in other contexts such as /etc files since the dawn of time). Is this horse dead yet? -- meem
