True. On the other hand you should consider that this is a generalised problem: I bet there are tons of system utilities around (perl,….) which directly depend on this output. So practically speaking you are locked-in already.
In our case, all parsing is anyway factored out into one single place, so change may be managed reasonably well (if that change ever occurs - cf above). The applications don't parse any output directly but depend on the API which is also sufficiently high-level to be easily applied and understood as it follows the same logic as the CLI that admins use with a shell. kuba -- On Sep 3, 2013, at 2:13 PM, chas williams - CONTRACTOR <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, 2 Sep 2013 14:23:47 +0200 > Christof Hanke <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Like Jakub, I think parsing the results of vos, fs commands is completely >> sufficient. >> The pathes to those binaries are not hardcoded, but can be changed quite >> easily. > > While sufficient, it does create problems in other ways. For instance, > the output of the commands can never be changed (even in slight ways) > since we have no idea how robust your parser might be. > _______________________________________________ > OpenAFS-info mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-info mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
