On 22 Nov 2015 17:21, "Brian (bex) Exelbierd" <bex pobox com> wrote:
>
>
>> On Nov 22, 2015, at 5:13 PM, Vaclav Pavlin <vpavlin redhat com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 5:09 PM, Brian (bex) Exelbierd <bex pobox com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> > 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.
>>>
>> We thought about this before. It is definitely possible, but only adds complexity imo
>
>
> Complexity and indirection is what we specialize in :)
>
Not funny:-P There is too much truth in it;)
>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>
>> This is going to happen anyway - whole `os.environ` is going to be passed to a RUN, INSTALL... label but it, again, adds complexity as an user has to first figure out (from Dockerfile? From inspect?) which variables he needs to override.
>
>
> True, but that is where `atomic help xxx` and docs can play a role. Zero config from day 0 is probably not real without interactivity.
Yes, it is definitely one of the solutions - and still better one than we have right now. Anyway, I am still more in favour of having Atomic App as a submodule of Atomic CLI as it would make it first class citizen on Atomic Host (and anywhere where user installs Atomic CLI).
It brings challenges like version conflicts (installed tool vs. pulled Nulecule) but as we already know, this sometimes becomes a problem even when the tool is part of the image.
I'd suggest to stick with the merging strategy and if that fails, let's fall back to crafting some new label craziness:)
Vasek
>
> regards,
>
> bex
>
>
>>
>> Both are viable solutions, but imo removing one layer of indirection is good idea:)
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Vašek
>>>
>>>
>>> regards,
>>>
>>> bex
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Container-tools mailing list
>>> Container-tools redhat com
>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/container-tools
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Architect - Senior Software Engineer
>> Developer Experience
>> Brno, Czech Republic
>> Phone: +420 739 666 824
>
>