Hi Wolfgang, I agree that the framework should have better support for groups and mutually exclusive options. This is a feature I've often had to do in a pre or post processing step.
I've thought about writing a CLI library which would accept a EBNF option grammar, much like JavaCC or ANTLR. You could do the validation, and assign actions to options or commands. A simple grammar would be easier to specify the arguments than a *Builder object. Realistically, though, I know I don't have the time to take on such a project, so my best bet it to improve on one of the existing projects. I should have some time in the next few weeks to get some fixes into CLI 2.x, and look at ways of making it do smarter validation. -Brian Wolfgang Roessler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi Hen, the Commons Validator package sounds interesting and I perhaps it should be possible to use these validators. But I also like the CLI2 validators for files and directories. The validators I am missing are something like dependency-validators, e.g. specify mutually exclusive options. Groups offer very little support for this. Currently validation and parsing is mixed up I think. This way if I pass a filename and the file should be writable but it isn't, I get an error that the option is missing and not, that there is a problem with the specified file. Perhaps this should be separated in a FileOption and the validator. In my opinion the target of CLI2 should be, that all parsing and validation is performed by the framework. Wolfgang
