geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From John Sisson <jrsis...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [LONG] Daemon command line option conventions - need to agree before 1.0
Date Mon, 05 Dec 2005 06:10:58 GMT
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:

>
> On Dec 1, 2005, at 9:33 PM, John Sisson wrote:
>
>> OK, I now believe it was a mistake suggesting we should have a  short 
>> form of *each* option.
>
>
> Why? :)

Why have them just for the sake of it.  We would only be encouraging 
people to write cryptic scripts that are harder to support and harder 
for new users to understand.  AFAIK gnu tar has a number of long options 
that don't have a short option.

>
>> I agree that I wouldn't run the options together like you can with  tar.
>
>
> Why not?


Because I not being a *NIX freak wouldn't think of trying to obfuscate 
my commands like that :-)

>
>>
>> I just want to make sure we have thought this through as now is our  
>> last chance to change it before introducing migration issues for  
>> supported releases.
>>
>> Considering the depoy tool uses "--" for its options so we should  
>> try to be consistent, here is my final attempt, trying to follow  the 
>> short (-) and long (--) convention.  I actually have a habit of  
>> using the long form of options when coding commands in scripts for  
>> readability/supportability.
>>
>>      --quiet              ** changed from -quiet **
>> -v    --verbose
>> -vv   --veryverbose
>
>
> For consistency...
>
> -V --veryverbose
>
> (it needs to be one char...)
>
I'm happy to change that if others agree.

Thanks for the feedback,

John

>>      --override           ** changed from -override **
>> -h    --help
>>      --long               **  new option to change startup to use  
>> long progress format **
>>
>> And we would support (but not actually document):
>>
>> -help
>> /?
>>
>> John
>>
>> Aaron Mulder wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/1/05, David Blevins <david.blevins@visi.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I didn't really mean that each option *has* to have a short  version--
>>>> there are only so many letters and numbers.  But something like  
>>>> this...
>>>>
>>>
>>> I know that many tools have established a convention.  I just don't
>>> like it for this case.  I surely run tar -xzpvf and appreciate not
>>> having to type long names for all the separate flags.  But I don't  use
>>> Geronimo with 5 flags that way.  No one will combine help with
>>> anything, many of the remaining flags covering the startup are at
>>> least to some degree mutually exclusive, I *want* it to be harder to
>>> type the override flag because no one should ever use it, ...  I  can't
>>> put my finger on a single specific thing, I just don't like the idea
>>> as a whole.  Sorry!  :)
>>>
>>> Aaron
>>>
>>>
>>>> Here are the options for some common/powerful command line tools:
>>>>
>>>>   wget   http://people.apache.org/~dblevins/cli/wget-options.txt
>>>>   tar    http://people.apache.org/~dblevins/cli/tar-options.txt
>>>>   rsync  http://people.apache.org/~dblevins/cli/rsync-options.txt
>>>>   patch  http://people.apache.org/~dblevins/cli/patch-options.txt
>>>>   grep   http://people.apache.org/~dblevins/cli/grep-options.txt
>>>>   diff   http://people.apache.org/~dblevins/cli/diff-options.txt
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -D --David
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>


Mime
View raw message