On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 16:22:49 +0000 "Wiles, Keith" <keith.wi...@intel.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 10, 2017, at 10:06 AM, Stephen Hemminger > > <step...@networkplumber.org> wrote: > > > > On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 15:25:31 +0000 > > "Wiles, Keith" <keith.wi...@intel.com> wrote: > > > >> I would like to request for comments on a new CLI design and get any > >> feedback. I have attached the cli.rst text, which is still a work in > >> progress for you review. > >> > >> I have also ported the CLI to a version of Pktgen on the ‘dev’ branch of > >> the repo in DPDK.org. > >> > >> http://dpdk.org/browse/apps/pktgen-dpdk/refs/?h=dev > >> > >> I would like to submit the CLI library to be used in DPDK, if that seems > >> reasonable to everyone. I need more testing of the API and Pktgen, but I > >> feel it has a simpler design, easier to understand and hopefully make it > >> easier for developers to add commands. > >> > >> As an example I quickly converted over testpmd from CMDLINE to CLI (I just > >> add a -I option to select CLI instead) and reduced the test-pmd/cmdline.c > >> file from 12.6K lines to about 4.5K lines. I did not fully test the code, > >> but the ones I did test seem to work. > >> > >> I do not expect DPDK to convert to the new CLI only if it makes sense and > >> I am not suggesting to replace CMDLINE library. > >> > >> If you play with the new CLI in pktgen and see any problems or want to > >> suggest new features or changes please let me know. > >> > >> Comments on the cli.rst text is also welcome, but the cli.rst is not > >> complete. I think this file needs to be broken into two one to explain the > >> example and another to explain CLI internals. > >> > > > > It would be great if all DPDK examples used a similar architecture. And > > having a common > > infrastructure would help. > > > > But not sure it needs to be special. Why should this be DPDK specific? > > What you are building really ends up being an application > > framework at some point. Surely, there are lots of others already in open > > source. > > > > Heck even VPP has its own CLI inside. > > I have been looking for one for years and never found one that met my needs > of easy to use and easy to understand. If you can find a better one then > please let me know. > > This code does use some DPDK APIs but they can be removed to make it > standalone and the first version I did was standalone. Some of the ones I > found were similar to cmdline and some took it a step farther by trying to do > everything one would ever need in a CLI. Those are way too big and difficult > to use, then you have the ones that are barely a step above readline or just > writing you own. The cmdline interface falls closer to the trying to do > everything for you, by converting strings into values with structures/macros > difficult to understand at a glance. IMHO this one is simple and easy to > understand. > > But in truth the cmdline interface in DPDK is difficult to use and to write > code for, takes way to many lines of code to make a simple command. The > current Cmdline is also not dynamic, which makes it difficult to add > features on the fly. > > All of the commands are at the same level and using a directory structure > allows the developer to use what directory path he takes to denote a context > for the command. As the example of converting test-pmd to use CLI the number > of lines dropped from 12.6K to 4.5K lines. The cmdline code is also not > consider to be production quality (from the docs) and I would like to fix > that problem for DPDK. > If you look beyond the simple C model there are a lot. TCL http://wanderinghorse.net/computing/shellish/eshell.html Though these may not match what is needed. Agree that the current cmdline() method is not suitable.
