Joseph Kowalski wrote:
> Darren Reed wrote:
>> Dan Mick wrote:
>>> ...
>>> and interactive use of shell is probably going to stick around for a
>>> while, and I don't know about all of you, but I write a whole lot of
>>> interactive shell pipelines in a day.
>>
>> And indeed I think a lot of us fit into that category.
>>
>> So, that got us a lot off track...
>>
>> 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".
I'm happy with this as a one off. The whole other side track was mostly
in argument to "lets invent a new syntax for all commands to output".
And I honestly don't care what the delimiter we pick is: any output
format we conceive is going to be either better or worse for at least
some interpreted language out there.
My one sort of pseudo-general question here is, what are the consumers
for this dladm output? Are there are any in particular that we know of
that need the parseable output, or are we just perceiving that they
might be useful to some admin somewhere? ('Cause I gotta tell you, I
have a hard time thinking of any day-in-day out sort of scripting
scenario where the ESSID is likely to be useful to have.)
-- Garrett
