> On Nov 13, 2015, at 7:19 PM, Charlie Drage <cdrage redhat com> wrote:
>
> Personally I'm on the fence on whether or not we should have two
> different CLI's, however, as Dan Walsh pointed out. It's confusing
> having two similarly named CLIs.
>
> However... we should still keep the projects separate and rather
> "bridge" the two together by passing / using the atomicapp container.
> This coincides to Dusty's slides about how we could possibly add:
> 'atomic exe --label=unpack <image> COMMANDS' through a PR to atomic.
>
> Currently we have to pass in --opt3 variables in order for params such
> as '--provider=docker' and '--answers=/tmp/answers' to be used correctly. We
> could fix this atomicapp side by adding non-ordered arguments
> so they may be passed anywhere in the command line.
Could the Atomic CLI make this easier by changing the way it parses arguments and manages labels?
Warning, immature ideas follow.
1) `atomic XXX ...` just looks for a label called XXX and runs it. That way arbitrary verbs are possible, when needed. Standards and linters should help keep things clean.
2) Could argument parsing in Atomic CLI be made more flexible than the current OPT system? Could the parser learn how to manage arguments like this:
RUN: docker run -it $foo $bar:o container command $destination $*
This is an attempt to specify the following substitutions:
$foo = whatever the entirety of a --foo== or -foo= or -foo or --foo - required
$bar = the same as $foo for s/foo/bar/ but optional
$destination = same as $foo above with s/foo/destination/
$* anything left over
This fixes positional problems, add some error output, etc.
regards,
bex
_______________________________________________
Container-tools mailing list
Container-tools redhat com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/container-tools