From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27329 invoked by alias); 1 Jun 2007 21:33:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 27321 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Jun 2007 21:33:35 -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 21:33:33 +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 l51LXVKw027093 for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2007 17:33:31 -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 l51LXUwD027181; Fri, 1 Jun 2007 17:33:31 -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 l51LXUer028443; Fri, 1 Jun 2007 17:33:30 -0400 Message-ID: <466090AA.6060507@redhat.com> Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2007 01:10:00 -0000 From: Nurdin Premji User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (X11/20070302) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrew Cagney CC: frysk Subject: Re: Command line utilities argument types. References: <46606E0E.3050804@redhat.com> <466082C6.4050207@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <466082C6.4050207@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/msg00238.txt.bz2 Andrew Cagney 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. > > Would these be reported using a callback-interface? > That is a great idea. I will use 3 callbacks to notify of pids, cores, and commands. I'm thinking parsePid (ProcId pid) parseCore (File core) parseCommand (String[] command) I don't know whether the first two should return a single pid/core and be called once for every pid/core found or arrays of pid/cores and only be called once. The third callback would only ever be called once.