Brock Pytlik wrote:
> Shawn Walker wrote:
>> [snip]
>>>>>
>>>>>> Why is it that we're testing properties against "none" versus just 
>>>>>> being
>>>>>> set to the empty string?  It seems like it will work, but I don't 
>>>>>> really
>>>>>> get the idiom.
>>>>>>   
>>>>> I went with none because it was the default/empty value for several 
>>>>> properties already. I'm much happier with checking the empty 
>>>>> string, but 'none' seemed to be the consensus in the manifest. I'll 
>>>>> change it and the manifest to use empty strings instead of none and 
>>>>> see if there are problems or complaints about it.
>>>>
>>>> This was done on purpose.
>>>>
>>>> My reasoning was as follows:
>>>>
>>>> --log-access and --log-errors have three special values each 
>>>> indicating logging destination *explicitly* (stderr, stdout, none) 
>>>> and anything else is assumed to be a filename if present.
>>>>
>>>> An empty string creates ambiguity in the command-line parsing for 
>>>> this reason:
>>>>
>>>> ./depot.py --log-access= --readonly
>>>> ./depot.py --log-access --readonly
>>>>
>>>> ...while I know that this is a side-affect of how long-options are 
>>>> parsed, it's also very annoying to me.
>>>>
>>>> As such, I would avoid "empty string" for the reason above and 
>>>> change --proxy-base instead to allow a value of "none" in depot.py 
>>>> for the same reason it's done for the logging parameters if you must 
>>>> change it.
>>>>
>>>> Danek and I recently discussed this topic in this thread:
>>>> http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/pkg-discuss/2008-October/007257.html 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I strongly prefer having an explicit destination value of "none" for 
>>>> the logging commands over just using an empty string since that is 
>>>> consistent with the other options of "stdout" and "stderr".
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>> Well, the nice thing about using this ksh script is that now the 
>>> depot never sees --log-access= or --log-access. If the option isn't 
>>> set, the flag never appears at all.
>>
>> Right, but I was trying to keep the SMF usage scenario consistent with 
>> the "user using this from the command-line case" scenario.
>>
>> However, if this change is only going to affect the SMF scenario, I 
>> have no strong objections.
>>
>> Cheers,
> 
> To me, this means the SMF use is more consistent with the command line 
> since I think most users would omit a flag, rather than setting it to 
> none explicitly. Since we've converged though, I suppose the details 
> don't matter much.

The problem with that is omitting --log-errors from the command-line *is 
NOT* the same as --log-errors=none.

There are some internal defaults for --log-errors and --log-access, by 
specifying --log-errors=none you are explicitly stating that you do not 
want errors logged, as an example.

-- 
Shawn Walker
_______________________________________________
pkg-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss

Reply via email to