[Container-tools] [atomic-devel] AtomicApp/Nulecule Design and Workflow

[Vaclav Pavlin]

On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 5:09 PM, Brian (bex) Exelbierd <bex at pobox.com>
wrote:

>
> > On Nov 13, 2015, at 7:19 PM, Charlie Drage <cdrage at redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > Personally I'm on the fence on whether or not we should have two
> > different CLI's, however, as Dan Walsh pointed out. It's confusing
> > having two similarly named CLIs.
> >
> > However... we should still keep the projects separate and rather
> > "bridge" the two together by passing / using the atomicapp container.
> > This coincides to Dusty's slides about how we could possibly add:
> > 'atomic exe --label=unpack <image> COMMANDS' through a PR to atomic.
> >
> > Currently we have to pass in --opt3 variables in order for params such
> > as '--provider=docker' and  '--answers=/tmp/answers' to be used
> correctly. We
> > could fix this atomicapp side by adding non-ordered arguments
> > so they may be passed anywhere in the command line.
>
>
> Could the Atomic CLI make this easier by changing the way it parses
> arguments and manages labels?
>
> Warning, immature ideas follow.
>
> 1) `atomic XXX ...` just looks for a label called XXX and runs it.  That
> way arbitrary verbs are possible, when needed.  Standards and linters
> should help keep things clean.
>
> We thought about this before. It is definitely possible, but only adds
complexity imo


> 2) Could argument parsing in Atomic CLI be made more flexible than the
> current OPT system?  Could the parser learn how to manage arguments like
> this:
>
> RUN: docker run -it $foo $bar:o container command $destination $*
>
> This is an attempt to specify the following substitutions:
>
> $foo = whatever the entirety of a --foo== or -foo= or -foo or --foo -
> required
> $bar = the same as $foo for s/foo/bar/ but optional
> $destination = same as $foo above with s/foo/destination/
> $* anything left over
>
> This fixes positional problems, add some error output, etc.
>

This is going to happen anyway - whole `os.environ` is going to be passed
to a RUN, INSTALL... label but it, again, adds complexity as an user has to
first figure out (from Dockerfile? From inspect?) which variables he needs
to override.

Both are viable solutions, but imo removing one layer of indirection is
good idea:)

Cheers,
Vašek

>
> regards,
>
> bex
>
> _______________________________________________
> Container-tools mailing list
> Container-tools at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/container-tools
>



-- 
Architect - Senior Software Engineer
Developer Experience
Brno, Czech Republic
Phone: +420 739 666 824
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/container-tools/attachments/20151122/3259ecc2/attachment.htm>