From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24465 invoked by alias); 1 Jun 2007 21:25:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 24453 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Jun 2007 21:25:04 -0000 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DK_POLICY_SIGNSOME,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 01 Jun 2007 21:24:59 +0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l51LOtjd022641 for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2007 17:24:55 -0400 Received: from pobox.toronto.redhat.com (pobox.toronto.redhat.com [172.16.14.4]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l51LOtVU023240; Fri, 1 Jun 2007 17:24:55 -0400 Received: from [172.16.14.160] (tow.toronto.redhat.com [172.16.14.160]) by pobox.toronto.redhat.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l51LOtZe026886; Fri, 1 Jun 2007 17:24:55 -0400 Message-ID: <46608EA6.3080203@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 21:33:00 -0000 From: Nurdin Premji User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (X11/20070302) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Phil Muldoon CC: frysk Subject: Re: Command line utilities argument types. References: <46606E0E.3050804@redhat.com> <46606F89.5050805@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <46606F89.5050805@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact frysk-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: frysk-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-q2/txt/msg00237.txt.bz2 Phil Muldoon wrote: > Nurdin Premji wrote: >> I'm going to be refactoring how the command line utilities will parse >> their arguments to make them as unified as possible. >> >> I've identified 4 types of input that can be passed to a command line >> utility: Pids, Core files, a command (executable with options), or >> nothing. >> >> Here is my interpretation of which command line utilities can take >> what types of arguments. > > How would you classify options (like logging and other behavior > modifiers, like -a for all maps output for fcore)? Or is that not > going to be touched by this refactor?. > > FWIW fcore can take one or many pids, can take logging options and can > take an optional -a parameter to dump all maps instead of selecting > the maps based on historical precedence of what to write/what to elide. > Regards > > Phil > I think the idea will be that the refactor will create a parser and return it, (probably add the logging options automatically) so utility specific options can be added to the parser after. So it won't be touching other options.