Re: [Mailman-Developers] [GSoC 2014] Mailman CLI Project

On May 13, 2014, at 03:27 PM, Rajeev S wrote:

Further there is a possibility of the user specifying multiple scopes,

mmclient show --list --listname "list@domain.org" --domain

Would --list be implied by seeing a --listname=list@example.com? E.g. would this be just as useful, and a little shorter:

mmclient show --listname=list@example.com --domain=example.org

?

which makes the outcome dependent on the order in which the if-else's are written. This is a serious bug when actions like delete are being used.

Destructive actions should probably be more constrained in what they allow, so that there's no possibility of ambiguity on either the part of the user or the code. "In the face of ambiguity, refuse the temptation to guess."

Got a bit confused with the use of *scope* in this context. Anyways, if the scope is not specified, apply the setting on a default *scope*, default=site-wide makes sense, while others do not.

Hmm. If scope is optional (because it has a default), then it's not a required positional argument, right? So shouldn't a --switch should be used?

Sorry about the horse :). As I said, I assumed it was OK, and It was a mistake from my part not to discuss the command syntax before working on it.

Also, the above is still possible with the current version. The *scope* positional argument can be made to default to a *scope* that has no solid structure, settings for example. More generally, it could be defaulted to a general scope, managed by a General class, that inherits from multiple classes like Settings, Backup/restore etc.

And as the final word, I am ready to change the command style,

mmclient <action> <scope> <arguments>

if there is some serious disagreement with it.

I just want it to be consistent, easily described, and easily understood by users. If it makes sense for the mmclient CLI to different from the shell-access mailman command, then we at least need to be "translatable" between the two.

-Barry