Re: command line api access ideas

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Adrian Likins wrote:

Between Red Hat Summit, FUDCon, and various discussions, it's occurred to me that lots of people are using the 'func' command line in applications instead of the python api. This is particular common
in non python apps of course, where the api isn't useable.

The problem with the current commandline client is that it is kind of limited usefulness in this useage. Parsing output seems to be an issue. Current versions support the use of the "--xmlrpc", "--json", and "--pickle" output modes, which could theoretically be used to make this a little easier. It wouldn't be hard to add other ways to marshall more complex data either, yaml, for example. Or perhaps a mode that would be easily parsed with commandline tools (csv? BAR=foo shellvar style?)
Any ideas?

The other side to the problem is the input. At the moment, the "call" support only supports passing string args on the command line. There are a couple of ways to make that more flexible that come to mind. One is to add some support for specifing types. Not sure what that would look like at the moment.

Another idea that I like, is the ability to read marshalled data in from stdin. It would be pretty easy to support xmlrpc style data this way, or json, or other types. It might make it a little easier to glue support for other languages in this way, and not be constrained by what can be passed into the command line

+1

A wrapper api could use native support for xmlrpc/json/yaml/etc to build up the data structures, and then
feed then via stdin to func.

Luca/Symbolic guys, what do you think of the above? I think it's easier than the XMLRPC over socket route and perhaps a bit easier to put together on for a language that doesn't have very good access to OS level bits (read: java). Func still requires permissions on the certs, so xmlrpc marshalling over STDIN seems fair to me, and other apps are known to do it.

The other easy thing to do would be YAML, but we lose the ability to express faults if we go that route.



Any suggestions?

Do it?  :)


Adrian

_______________________________________________
Func-list mailing list
Func-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/func-list

_______________________________________________
Func-list mailing list
Func-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/func-list

[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Linux Networking]     [Fedora Legacy List]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Big List of Linux Books]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux