What about renaming "run-install" to "run-install-demo"?
Locked
12
12
 
|
And what is the issue in adding the new command and changing the old one
to give a meaningful help message to use the new one? How would this break the documentation? Command is still there and user can use it and they get on screen help to use a something new. I do not see why would you need to fix is the existing documentation and books for this change. If some thing is broken and lot it written about it does not mean that you don't fix it. This change is needed to bring the clarity to the command as run-install does not give you a hint that it is installing the demo data unless you read through ant help messages. Regards, Raj On 21/04/10 12:36, Adrian Crum wrote: > Jacopo, > > You're missing the point - it's not as easy as that. The command "ant run-install" is mentioned in innumerable places in documentation, websites, books, etc. It's not just a matter of modifying a script - it's a matter of rewriting seven years of documentation. > > If it's not an issue, then why did you bring it up? > > -Adrian > > > --- On Tue, 4/20/10, Jacopo Cappellato<[hidden email]> wrote: > > >> From: Jacopo Cappellato<[hidden email]> >> Subject: Re: What about renaming "run-install" to "run-install-demo"? >> To: [hidden email] >> Date: Tuesday, April 20, 2010, 11:54 PM >> The easiest way to do this would be >> to: >> 1) add run-install-demo (= run-install) >> 2) run-install should simply print a message explaining >> that now run-install-demo should be used >> >> But really, I am not very interested in spending more time >> to discuss this, especially because it is not an issue I (or >> my customers) have. >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Jacopo >> >> On Apr 21, 2010, at 7:45 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: >> >> >>> I had the same thought, thanks Raj >>> >>> Jacques >>> >>> From: "Raj Saini"<[hidden email]> >>> >>>> In my opinion run-install is misleading as it >>>> >> really does not tell that it is going to install demo data >> and cause confusion to new users as it has happened with me >> in the past. For the benefit of old and new users, I suggest >> to add new command run-install-demo and leave the >> run-install as it is for a while and document them to tell >> what exactly they do. There are numerous examples of this in >> the Linux/Unix world. >> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> Raj >>>> >>>> On 21/04/10 09:39, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Apr 21, 2010, at 1:15 AM, Ean Schuessler >>>>> >> wrote: >> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Jacopo Cappellato wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> This is just *your* opinion and I >>>>>>> >> respect it (even if comparing this to altering an api is >> ridiculous)... but please quit with the "teacher/guru" >> mode... >> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> Why is it ridiculous to think of shell >>>>>> >> script parameters as an API? You >> >>>>>> would surely be surprised if "ls" became >>>>>> >> "rm" one day, as an extreme but >> >>>>>> valid example. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> As a new user of the "OFBiz Linux OS" I would >>>>> >> be also very surprised if the "rm" command really was a "rm >> -r" command; in my opinion this is worth of a change, even >> if old users would have to read one line of documentation to >> learn the change. >> >>>>> But really, it is not very important, I am >>>>> >> more than happy to leave things as is because I understand >> that this could be annoying for old users and frankly >> speaking I don't have time and energy to further discuss >> this. >> >>>>> Jacopo >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> I think we can safely regard shell scripts >>>>>> >> as a class of >> >>>>>> program. >>>>>> >>>>>> Regarding "run-install", we've set an >>>>>> >> expectation that run-install will >> >>>>>> give you a demo system and that could >>>>>> >> throw people off. Changing it >> >>>>>> doesn't seem hazardous but I'm not clear >>>>>> >> that it adds value. >> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Ean Schuessler, CTO >>>>>> [hidden email] >>>>>> 214-720-0700 x 315 >>>>>> Brainfood, Inc. >>>>>> http://www.brainfood.com >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >> >> > > > > |
Re: What about renaming "run-install" to "run-install-demo"?
Administrator
|
In reply to this post by Adrian Crum-2
I don't want to waste to much time on this, but at large we can't stay forever in some state because it exists, conservative?
Jacques PS: Arg... I should have refrained on this, crazy I'm :D From: "Adrian Crum" <[hidden email]> > Jacopo, > > You're missing the point - it's not as easy as that. The command "ant run-install" is mentioned in innumerable places in > documentation, websites, books, etc. It's not just a matter of modifying a script - it's a matter of rewriting seven years of > documentation. > > If it's not an issue, then why did you bring it up? > > -Adrian > > > --- On Tue, 4/20/10, Jacopo Cappellato <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> From: Jacopo Cappellato <[hidden email]> >> Subject: Re: What about renaming "run-install" to "run-install-demo"? >> To: [hidden email] >> Date: Tuesday, April 20, 2010, 11:54 PM >> The easiest way to do this would be >> to: >> 1) add run-install-demo (= run-install) >> 2) run-install should simply print a message explaining >> that now run-install-demo should be used >> >> But really, I am not very interested in spending more time >> to discuss this, especially because it is not an issue I (or >> my customers) have. >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Jacopo >> >> On Apr 21, 2010, at 7:45 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: >> >> > I had the same thought, thanks Raj >> > >> > Jacques >> > >> > From: "Raj Saini" <[hidden email]> >> >> In my opinion run-install is misleading as it >> really does not tell that it is going to install demo data >> and cause confusion to new users as it has happened with me >> in the past. For the benefit of old and new users, I suggest >> to add new command run-install-demo and leave the >> run-install as it is for a while and document them to tell >> what exactly they do. There are numerous examples of this in >> the Linux/Unix world. >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> >> >> Raj >> >> >> >> On 21/04/10 09:39, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: >> >>> On Apr 21, 2010, at 1:15 AM, Ean Schuessler >> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> >> >>>> Jacopo Cappellato wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>>> This is just *your* opinion and I >> respect it (even if comparing this to altering an api is >> ridiculous)... but please quit with the "teacher/guru" >> mode... >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>> Why is it ridiculous to think of shell >> script parameters as an API? You >> >>>> would surely be surprised if "ls" became >> "rm" one day, as an extreme but >> >>>> valid example. >> >>>> >> >>> As a new user of the "OFBiz Linux OS" I would >> be also very surprised if the "rm" command really was a "rm >> -r" command; in my opinion this is worth of a change, even >> if old users would have to read one line of documentation to >> learn the change. >> >>> But really, it is not very important, I am >> more than happy to leave things as is because I understand >> that this could be annoying for old users and frankly >> speaking I don't have time and energy to further discuss >> this. >> >>> >> >>> Jacopo >> >>> >> >>> >> >>>> I think we can safely regard shell scripts >> as a class of >> >>>> program. >> >>>> >> >>>> Regarding "run-install", we've set an >> expectation that run-install will >> >>>> give you a demo system and that could >> throw people off. Changing it >> >>>> doesn't seem hazardous but I'm not clear >> that it adds value. >> >>>> >> >>>> -- >> >>>> Ean Schuessler, CTO >> >>>> [hidden email] >> >>>> 214-720-0700 x 315 >> >>>> Brainfood, Inc. >> >>>> http://www.brainfood.com >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>> >> > >> > >> >> > > > > |
Re: What about renaming "run-install" to "run-install-demo"?
|
|
In reply to this post by Adrian Crum-2
if messages are the answer how about a simple input in the current file
that says your about to load demo data, do you want to. ========================= BJ Freeman http://bjfreeman.elance.com Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation <http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=93> Specialtymarket.com <http://www.specialtymarket.com/> Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man <http://www.linkedin.com/profile?viewProfile=&key=1237480&locale=en_US&trk=tab_pro> Raj Saini sent the following on 4/21/2010 12:16 AM: > And what is the issue in adding the new command and changing the old one > to give a meaningful help message to use the new one? How would this > break the documentation? Command is still there and user can use it and > they get on screen help to use a something new. I do not see why would > you need to fix is the existing documentation and books for this change. > > If some thing is broken and lot it written about it does not mean that > you don't fix it. This change is needed to bring the clarity to the > command as run-install does not give you a hint that it is installing > the demo data unless you read through ant help messages. > > Regards, > > Raj > > On 21/04/10 12:36, Adrian Crum wrote: >> Jacopo, >> >> You're missing the point - it's not as easy as that. The command "ant >> run-install" is mentioned in innumerable places in documentation, >> websites, books, etc. It's not just a matter of modifying a script - >> it's a matter of rewriting seven years of documentation. >> >> If it's not an issue, then why did you bring it up? >> >> -Adrian >> >> >> --- On Tue, 4/20/10, Jacopo >> Cappellato<[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> >>> From: Jacopo Cappellato<[hidden email]> >>> Subject: Re: What about renaming "run-install" to "run-install-demo"? >>> To: [hidden email] >>> Date: Tuesday, April 20, 2010, 11:54 PM >>> The easiest way to do this would be >>> to: >>> 1) add run-install-demo (= run-install) >>> 2) run-install should simply print a message explaining >>> that now run-install-demo should be used >>> >>> But really, I am not very interested in spending more time >>> to discuss this, especially because it is not an issue I (or >>> my customers) have. >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> >>> Jacopo >>> >>> On Apr 21, 2010, at 7:45 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: >>> >>> >>>> I had the same thought, thanks Raj >>>> >>>> Jacques >>>> >>>> From: "Raj Saini"<[hidden email]> >>>> >>>>> In my opinion run-install is misleading as it >>>>> >>> really does not tell that it is going to install demo data >>> and cause confusion to new users as it has happened with me >>> in the past. For the benefit of old and new users, I suggest >>> to add new command run-install-demo and leave the >>> run-install as it is for a while and document them to tell >>> what exactly they do. There are numerous examples of this in >>> the Linux/Unix world. >>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>>> Raj >>>>> >>>>> On 21/04/10 09:39, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Apr 21, 2010, at 1:15 AM, Ean Schuessler >>>>>> >>> wrote: >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Jacopo Cappellato wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This is just *your* opinion and I >>>>>>>> >>> respect it (even if comparing this to altering an api is >>> ridiculous)... but please quit with the "teacher/guru" >>> mode... >>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why is it ridiculous to think of shell >>>>>>> >>> script parameters as an API? You >>> >>>>>>> would surely be surprised if "ls" became >>>>>>> >>> "rm" one day, as an extreme but >>> >>>>>>> valid example. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> As a new user of the "OFBiz Linux OS" I would >>>>>> >>> be also very surprised if the "rm" command really was a "rm >>> -r" command; in my opinion this is worth of a change, even >>> if old users would have to read one line of documentation to >>> learn the change. >>> >>>>>> But really, it is not very important, I am >>>>>> >>> more than happy to leave things as is because I understand >>> that this could be annoying for old users and frankly >>> speaking I don't have time and energy to further discuss >>> this. >>> >>>>>> Jacopo >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> I think we can safely regard shell scripts >>>>>>> >>> as a class of >>> >>>>>>> program. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regarding "run-install", we've set an >>>>>>> >>> expectation that run-install will >>> >>>>>>> give you a demo system and that could >>>>>>> >>> throw people off. Changing it >>> >>>>>>> doesn't seem hazardous but I'm not clear >>>>>>> >>> that it adds value. >>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Ean Schuessler, CTO >>>>>>> [hidden email] >>>>>>> 214-720-0700 x 315 >>>>>>> Brainfood, Inc. >>>>>>> http://www.brainfood.com >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> > > |
Re: What about renaming "run-install" to "run-install-demo"?
|
|
In reply to this post by Jacopo Cappellato-4
----- "Jacopo Cappellato" wrote:
> It is not an issue for *me*, but I know that users are often confused by the run-install target. I'm not against changing it. -- Ean Schuessler, CTO Brainfood.com [hidden email] - http://www.brainfood.com - 214-720-0700 x 315 |
Re: What about renaming "run-install" to "run-install-demo"?
|
|
In reply to this post by David E. Jones-2
David E Jones wrote:
> I just want to make one thing clear related to this: if _I_ make changes that are not backward compatible then it's because they are really important and no one should question them; if anyone else makes (or proposes) a change that I don't like and I can raise the backward compatibility flag then I will, and you should respect that and just don't do whatever the thing is. Don't worry, I'll be sure to make strong statements and appeal to authority and popularity of patterns so that you can justify it to whoever you feel responsible to. Of course, those outward reasons are the very things that you'll never be able to argue against, no matter how inapplicable or extreme or pragmatically unhelpful they might be. > > Now, if anyone disagrees with my position on this then that's fine, as long as you don't feel like you can behave this way and that you never have behaved this way. Any challengers? > > -Not David Gah, I hate you now. I just ruined a perfectly good keyboard, it's covered in coffee. And my shirt is going to be stained. > > P.S. On a more serious note, I'm not a huge fan of universal backward compatibility (or of changes that cause hidden breaking of backward compatibility... better to break things completely than make things seem like they are working even though existing code fails, like type conversion changes and such). Sometimes it takes a while to figure out the best way to do things, and why keep the problematic and bad ways of doing things when we do figure it out? If a hexagonal wheel works so much better than a square wheel that square wheels don't make sense anymore, to the point where they caused more problems than they solved, why not encourage everyone to change and just stop supporting the bad design? And yes, sooner or later we're gonna figure out that a good round shape is better than a hexagon and then we'll have to change again... and it'll be WELL worth it and users will thank us a lot for fixing those issues. Just because we haven't fixed a bad idea for a long time doesn't make it any better of an idea. Restating what I said earlier, I was never actually against adding a new target. I just took exception to the renaming of the existing one. That implied that it was going away. ps: I think the 'run-' prefix is superfluous. ant install, ant install-demo seems better to me. |
Re: What about renaming "run-install" to "run-install-demo"?
|
|
On Apr 21, 2010, at 2:15 PM, Adam Heath wrote: > David E Jones wrote: >> I just want to make one thing clear related to this: if _I_ make changes that are not backward compatible then it's because they are really important and no one should question them; if anyone else makes (or proposes) a change that I don't like and I can raise the backward compatibility flag then I will, and you should respect that and just don't do whatever the thing is. Don't worry, I'll be sure to make strong statements and appeal to authority and popularity of patterns so that you can justify it to whoever you feel responsible to. Of course, those outward reasons are the very things that you'll never be able to argue against, no matter how inapplicable or extreme or pragmatically unhelpful they might be. >> >> Now, if anyone disagrees with my position on this then that's fine, as long as you don't feel like you can behave this way and that you never have behaved this way. Any challengers? >> >> -Not David > > Gah, I hate you now. It had to happen sooner or later! ;) -David |
Re: What about renaming "run-install" to "run-install-demo"?
|
|
David E Jones wrote:
> On Apr 21, 2010, at 2:15 PM, Adam Heath wrote: > >> David E Jones wrote: >>> I just want to make one thing clear related to this: if _I_ make changes that are not backward compatible then it's because they are really important and no one should question them; if anyone else makes (or proposes) a change that I don't like and I can raise the backward compatibility flag then I will, and you should respect that and just don't do whatever the thing is. Don't worry, I'll be sure to make strong statements and appeal to authority and popularity of patterns so that you can justify it to whoever you feel responsible to. Of course, those outward reasons are the very things that you'll never be able to argue against, no matter how inapplicable or extreme or pragmatically unhelpful they might be. >>> >>> Now, if anyone disagrees with my position on this then that's fine, as long as you don't feel like you can behave this way and that you never have behaved this way. Any challengers? >>> >>> -Not David >> Gah, I hate you now. > > It had to happen sooner or later! ;) Well, that's great. You are even funnier. Quoting just the 'bad' part of the mail, that in context, was funny, but now, if someone reads this out of order, makes you look like a god, and me look like a moron. Maybe I should give you more ammo to do this. > > -David > |
Re: What about renaming "run-install" to "run-install-demo"?
|
|
On Apr 21, 2010, at 2:21 PM, Adam Heath wrote: > David E Jones wrote: >> On Apr 21, 2010, at 2:15 PM, Adam Heath wrote: >> >>> David E Jones wrote: >>>> I just want to make one thing clear related to this: if _I_ make changes that are not backward compatible then it's because they are really important and no one should question them; if anyone else makes (or proposes) a change that I don't like and I can raise the backward compatibility flag then I will, and you should respect that and just don't do whatever the thing is. Don't worry, I'll be sure to make strong statements and appeal to authority and popularity of patterns so that you can justify it to whoever you feel responsible to. Of course, those outward reasons are the very things that you'll never be able to argue against, no matter how inapplicable or extreme or pragmatically unhelpful they might be. >>>> >>>> Now, if anyone disagrees with my position on this then that's fine, as long as you don't feel like you can behave this way and that you never have behaved this way. Any challengers? >>>> >>>> -Not David >>> Gah, I hate you now. >> >> It had to happen sooner or later! ;) > > Well, that's great. You are even funnier. Quoting just the 'bad' > part of the mail, that in context, was funny, but now, if someone > reads this out of order, makes you look like a god, and me look like a > moron. > > Maybe I should give you more ammo to do this. You have an interesting way of looking at things. I guess I should STFU. -David |
Re: What about renaming "run-install" to "run-install-demo"?
|
|
David E Jones wrote:
> On Apr 21, 2010, at 2:21 PM, Adam Heath wrote: > >> David E Jones wrote: >>> On Apr 21, 2010, at 2:15 PM, Adam Heath wrote: >>> >>>> David E Jones wrote: >>>>> I just want to make one thing clear related to this: if _I_ make changes that are not backward compatible then it's because they are really important and no one should question them; if anyone else makes (or proposes) a change that I don't like and I can raise the backward compatibility flag then I will, and you should respect that and just don't do whatever the thing is. Don't worry, I'll be sure to make strong statements and appeal to authority and popularity of patterns so that you can justify it to whoever you feel responsible to. Of course, those outward reasons are the very things that you'll never be able to argue against, no matter how inapplicable or extreme or pragmatically unhelpful they might be. >>>>> >>>>> Now, if anyone disagrees with my position on this then that's fine, as long as you don't feel like you can behave this way and that you never have behaved this way. Any challengers? >>>>> >>>>> -Not David >>>> Gah, I hate you now. >>> It had to happen sooner or later! ;) >> Well, that's great. You are even funnier. Quoting just the 'bad' >> part of the mail, that in context, was funny, but now, if someone >> reads this out of order, makes you look like a god, and me look like a >> moron. >> >> Maybe I should give you more ammo to do this. > > You have an interesting way of looking at things. I guess I should STFU. I was still trying to be funny. |
Re: What about renaming "run-install" to "run-install-demo"?
|
Administrator
|
In reply to this post by Adam Heath-2
From: "Adam Heath" <[hidden email]>
> David E Jones wrote: >> I just want to make one thing clear related to this: if _I_ make changes that are not backward compatible then it's because they >> are really important and no one should question them; if anyone else makes (or proposes) a change that I don't like and I can >> raise the backward compatibility flag then I will, and you should respect that and just don't do whatever the thing is. Don't >> worry, I'll be sure to make strong statements and appeal to authority and popularity of patterns so that you can justify it to >> whoever you feel responsible to. Of course, those outward reasons are the very things that you'll never be able to argue against, >> no matter how inapplicable or extreme or pragmatically unhelpful they might be. >> >> Now, if anyone disagrees with my position on this then that's fine, as long as you don't feel like you can behave this way and >> that you never have behaved this way. Any challengers? >> >> -Not David > > Gah, I hate you now. I just ruined a perfectly good keyboard, it's > covered in coffee. And my shirt is going to be stained. > >> >> P.S. On a more serious note, I'm not a huge fan of universal backward compatibility (or of changes that cause hidden breaking of >> backward compatibility... better to break things completely than make things seem like they are working even though existing code >> fails, like type conversion changes and such). Sometimes it takes a while to figure out the best way to do things, and why keep >> the problematic and bad ways of doing things when we do figure it out? If a hexagonal wheel works so much better than a square >> wheel that square wheels don't make sense anymore, to the point where they caused more problems than they solved, why not >> encourage everyone to change and just stop supporting the bad design? And yes, sooner or later we're gonna figure out that a good >> round shape is better than a hexagon and then we'll have to change again... and it'll be WELL worth it and users will thank us a >> lot for fixing those issues. Just because we haven't fixed a bad idea for a long time doesn't > make it any better of an idea. > > Restating what I said earlier, I was never actually against adding a > new target. I just took exception to the renaming of the existing > one. That implied that it was going away. > > ps: I think the 'run-' prefix is superfluous. ant install, ant > install-demo seems better to me. I agree with the ps: I thought the same while in bed (it's the place where I think most :o) Jacques |
Re: What about renaming "run-install" to "run-install-demo"?
|
|
In reply to this post by Adam Heath-2
On Apr 21, 2010, at 9:15 PM, Adam Heath wrote:
> > ps: I think the 'run-' prefix is superfluous. ant install, ant > install-demo seems better to me. Adam, I completely agree with you here... sometimes simplicity is in front of our eyes and we don't see it: "install-demo", "install-seed" (and, if we want, the equivalent "install") could be the new generation of ant targets (that will deprecate the old ones). And what if, instead of "install-*" we use the prefix "load-*"? load-demo, load-seed (without the generic "load" method). Jacopo |
Re: What about renaming "run-install" to "run-install-demo"?
|
Administrator
|
From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <[hidden email]>
> On Apr 21, 2010, at 9:15 PM, Adam Heath wrote: > >> >> ps: I think the 'run-' prefix is superfluous. ant install, ant >> install-demo seems better to me. > > Adam, > > I completely agree with you here... sometimes simplicity is in front of our eyes and we don't see it: "install-demo", > "install-seed" (and, if we want, the equivalent "install") could be the new generation of ant targets (that will deprecate the old > ones). > And what if, instead of "install-*" we use the prefix "load-*"? load-demo, load-seed (without the generic "load" method). > > Jacopo Yes, load is even better IMO Jacques |
Re: What about renaming "run-install" to "run-install-demo"?
|
|
In reply to this post by Jacopo Cappellato-4
Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
> On Apr 21, 2010, at 9:15 PM, Adam Heath wrote: > >> ps: I think the 'run-' prefix is superfluous. ant install, ant >> install-demo seems better to me. > > Adam, > > I completely agree with you here... sometimes simplicity is in front of our eyes and we don't see it: "install-demo", "install-seed" (and, if we want, the equivalent "install") could be the new generation of ant targets (that will deprecate the old ones). > And what if, instead of "install-*" we use the prefix "load-*"? load-demo, load-seed (without the generic "load" method). Sure. install implies that the downloaded, freshly built files will be placed into the system standard directories. I'm down with load. |
|
|
In reply to this post by Jacopo Cappellato-4
+1
For 2), may I suggest that the new run-install should print out a list of run-install-* variants and their explanations?
|
Re: What about renaming "run-install" to "run-install-demo"?
|
Administrator
|
From: "james_sg" <[hidden email]>
> +1 > > For 2), may I suggest that the new run-install should print out a list of > run-install-* variants and their explanations? There is already the traditionnal ant -p for all targets, but yes, why not... Jacques > > Jacopo Cappellato-4 wrote: >> >> The easiest way to do this would be to: >> 1) add run-install-demo (= run-install) >> 2) run-install should simply print a message explaining that now >> run-install-demo should be used >> >> But really, I am not very interested in spending more time to discuss >> this, especially because it is not an issue I (or my customers) have. >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Jacopo >> >> > > -- > View this message in context: > http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/What-about-renaming-run-install-to-run-install-demo-tp2017567p2023004.html > Sent from the OFBiz - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > |
Re: What about renaming "run-install" to "run-install-demo"?
|
|
Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> From: "james_sg" <[hidden email]> >> +1 >> >> For 2), may I suggest that the new run-install should print out a list of >> run-install-* variants and their explanations? > > There is already the traditionnal ant -p for all targets, but yes, why > not... Sorry, that brings us back to the start of this. Changing what run-install does is what I thought we decided against. It can print suggestions/warnings, but it should still process whatever cmdline args just like it always has. |
Re: What about renaming "run-install" to "run-install-demo"?
|
|
On Apr 23, 2010, at 8:24 AM, Adam Heath wrote: > Jacques Le Roux wrote: >> From: "james_sg" <[hidden email]> >>> +1 >>> >>> For 2), may I suggest that the new run-install should print out a list of >>> run-install-* variants and their explanations? >> >> There is already the traditionnal ant -p for all targets, but yes, why >> not... > > Sorry, that brings us back to the start of this. Changing what > run-install does is what I thought we decided against. I don't think we decided this. > It can print > suggestions/warnings, but it should still process whatever cmdline > args just like it always has. I think it is better to simply inform the user that there are now new commands (e.g. load-seed-data and load-demo-data) and stop; this solution addresses all the concerns about confusing users and it represents a good way to inform the old users (that don't read the README and release documentation) about the new commands. Jacopo |
Re: What about renaming "run-install" to "run-install-demo"?
|
|
In reply to this post by Adam Heath-2
+1
========================= BJ Freeman http://bjfreeman.elance.com Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation <http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=93> Specialtymarket.com <http://www.specialtymarket.com/> Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man <http://www.linkedin.com/profile?viewProfile=&key=1237480&locale=en_US&trk=tab_pro> Jacopo Cappellato sent the following on 4/23/2010 12:58 AM: > On Apr 23, 2010, at 8:24 AM, Adam Heath wrote: > >> Jacques Le Roux wrote: >>> From: "james_sg" <[hidden email]> >>>> +1 >>>> >>>> For 2), may I suggest that the new run-install should print out a list of >>>> run-install-* variants and their explanations? >>> There is already the traditionnal ant -p for all targets, but yes, why >>> not... >> Sorry, that brings us back to the start of this. Changing what >> run-install does is what I thought we decided against. > > I don't think we decided this. > >> It can print >> suggestions/warnings, but it should still process whatever cmdline >> args just like it always has. > > I think it is better to simply inform the user that there are now new commands (e.g. load-seed-data and load-demo-data) and stop; this solution addresses all the concerns about confusing users and it represents a good way to inform the old users (that don't read the README and release documentation) about the new commands. > > Jacopo > > > |
Re: What about renaming "run-install" to "run-install-demo"?
|
Administrator
|
A deprecation phase could be used, but I don't think it's worth it.
Is it so a big deal for anyone? (this is a request for explanations, if any, not just a yes ...) Jacques From: "BJ Freeman" <[hidden email]> > +1 > > ========================= > BJ Freeman > http://bjfreeman.elance.com > Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation <http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=93> > Specialtymarket.com <http://www.specialtymarket.com/> > > Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist > > Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man > <http://www.linkedin.com/profile?viewProfile=&key=1237480&locale=en_US&trk=tab_pro> > > > Jacopo Cappellato sent the following on 4/23/2010 12:58 AM: >> On Apr 23, 2010, at 8:24 AM, Adam Heath wrote: >> >>> Jacques Le Roux wrote: >>>> From: "james_sg" <[hidden email]> >>>>> +1 >>>>> >>>>> For 2), may I suggest that the new run-install should print out a list of >>>>> run-install-* variants and their explanations? >>>> There is already the traditionnal ant -p for all targets, but yes, why >>>> not... >>> Sorry, that brings us back to the start of this. Changing what >>> run-install does is what I thought we decided against. >> >> I don't think we decided this. >> >>> It can print >>> suggestions/warnings, but it should still process whatever cmdline >>> args just like it always has. >> >> I think it is better to simply inform the user that there are now new commands (e.g. load-seed-data and load-demo-data) and stop; >> this solution addresses all the concerns about confusing users and it represents a good way to inform the old users (that don't >> read the README and release documentation) about the new commands. >> >> Jacopo >> >> >> > > |
«
Return to OFBiz - Dev
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |