On 08/22/2012 11:03 AM, Michael Hrivnak wrote:
I like this newest version as well. While there may not be much of a practical difference between
"pulp-rpm repo list" and "pulp-admin rpm repo list", keeping one unified
executable seems to give psychological encouragement to keep extension CLIs consistent.
What first came to mind is the "ip" command, which has similar challenges in
terms of operating on different types of objects such as routes, links, tunnels, etc. Its
approach is similar to your newest proposal. Here is its signature:
ip [ OPTIONS ] OBJECT { COMMAND | help }
For example, "ip route list" where "route" is an object type, and "list" is a
command.
It's worth noting that the "ip" command came about largely to unify the
functionality and interface of several disparate networking commands. For pulp to have
similar unification up-front will prevent interface divergence over time as the scope and
number of extensions increases.
Wow, that was a helluva good argument in favor of that version. That's
the route I'm proceeding down now, it'll be a few days before I get
everything restructured but I'll keep everyone posted.
Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jay Dobies" <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2012 8:41:06 AM
Subject: Re: [Pulp-list] Puppet in the CLI
On 08/22/2012 02:43 AM, Jason Connor wrote:
I'm also leaning toward option 2, version 2.
I tried mental exercise on a 3rd version. Namely and auto-type detecting
script, but you hung up on the help flag alone, so I don't think it'll fly.
O2V2 is, imo, the cleanest.
I thought of a O2V2 this morning where we keep a single pulp-admin
script but branch at the root of the commands:
pulp-admin rpm repo ...
pulp-admin puppet repo ...
pulp-admin generic repo ...
It's basically the same concept of individual trees of commands, but a
single script. I'm still leaning towards O2V2, but figured I'd throw
that out there.
Jason L Connor
linear on freenode #pulp
http://pulpproject.org/
RHCE: 805010912355231
GPG Fingerprint: 2048R/CC4ED7C1
On Aug 21, 2012, at 9:40 AM, Jay Dobies <[email protected]> wrote:
https://fedorahosted.org/pulp/wiki/GCCLITypes
When first adding the RPM extensions, I knew we'd have to figure something out
when we supported Puppet but decided to hold off on the decision and see how
things took shape.
It's time to revisit the CLI structure and how to handle the fact that the Pulp
team is now providing support for 2 different plugin packs, keeping in mind
that that number may grow depending on what other types of content we decide to
bite off and maintain as a team (or get contributed).
The page above describes my thought process in how to handle our admin CLI with
multiple types. I included some chat conversations with the community on what
they think as well.
It's pretty clear reading it which way I'm leaning. I'd like to come to a
conclusion following the scrum meeting tomorrow, but I don't want to wait that
long to hear any brilliant ideas you have on the issue since I'll probably
start down a path this afternoon. So please reply to this or me personally if
you have a strong opinion in any direction.
--
Jay Dobies
Freenode: jdob @ #pulp
http://pulpproject.org | http://blog.pulpproject.org
_______________________________________________
Pulp-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-list
--
Jay Dobies
Freenode: jdob @ #pulp
http://pulpproject.org | http://blog.pulpproject.org
_______________________________________________
Pulp-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-list
