buildr-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Assaf Arkin" <ar...@intalio.com>
Subject Re: Interactive Shell Support
Date Tue, 06 Jan 2009 20:24:28 GMT
On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 11:07 AM, Alex Boisvert <boisvert@intalio.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 10:50 AM, Daniel Spiewak <djspiewak@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > Yes, but I only have to do it once when I write the buildfile. All the
>> > times I run the shell, I don't have to cd into a specific directory,
>> > or remember the qualified task name. So if you don't need different
>> > shells for different projects (in the same build), overall there's
>> > much less effort setting it up this way.
>>
>
> The same could be said for the other approach.  You could easily have,
>
> task 'shell' => 'myproject:shell:jirb'
>
> in your project and be done with it.

You could. But I'm more concerned with what would actually take place,
read: what people would.

If you offer one shell, assume that's the common option we're
optimizing for, people who need more than one will ask for it. And
it's very easy to explain the path from one shell to two (or more),
and we find a simple solution to make it possible with a single line
of code.

If you offer multiple shells, people just use myproject:shell:jirb.
Some would dig deep enough to discover that they can decorate 'shell'
=> 'myproject:shell:jirb' into each of their buildfiles, and this
simple act saves a lot of typing later. But most people won't do that,
most people will be dealing with lesser quality software.

The question is, what is the common case. If we could decide on that,
we should definitely optimize for the common case.

Assaf

>
>
>> Oh, on a syntactic note, Lispers would know the "shell" much better as a
>> REPL.  What's the preferred terminology?  I like shell because it's short
>> and relatively easy to understand, but maybe I'm the minority.  If someone
>> is expecting the interactive language shell to be called a "REPL", then
>> they
>> would probably expect `buildr shell` to be some sort of interactive command
>> interface to Buildr itself (allowing you to run tasks).  Does this seem
>> like
>> a potential problem or should we not fret over it?
>
>
> I think "shell" is the more common and broader name.   And as shown above,
> it's easy to create an alias if you insist on a specific name.
>
> alex
>

Mime
View raw message