On Jan 27, 2014, at 10:27 AM, James Peach wrote:
>
> I do want to echo Nick's thoughts about the purpose of traffic_shell though.
> What's it really for? Does the need for it still exist? Would it make sense
> to roll its useful parts into traffic_line?
A lot of traffic_shell (most?) I don’
On Jan 25, 2014, at 5:37 AM, Leif Hedstrom wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I’ve written a replacement for traffic_shell, entirely in Perl using our Perl
> Admin module. This has two benefits:
>
> 1) It eliminates a huge dependency on TCL (and readline or similar lib),
> leaving o
The "problem" is that traffic_shell implements the full mgmt APIs in TCL
bindings. My replacement only implements the show: commands.
> On Jan 27, 2014, at 2:28 AM, Arno Töll wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>> On 25.01.2014 14:37, Leif Hedstrom wrote:
>> Thoughts? I’d like to land this for v5.0.0.
>
> Y
Hi,
On 25.01.2014 14:37, Leif Hedstrom wrote:
> Thoughts? I’d like to land this for v5.0.0.
Yay! Do it! Do it!
>
> The downside is that we lose the ability to write TCL script using
> the traffic_shell interpreter. I honestly don’t feel this being a
> huge problem, particularly if we focus e
On Jan 25, 2014, at 2:37 PM, Leif Hedstrom wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I’ve written a replacement for traffic_shell, entirely in Perl using our Perl
> Admin module. This has two benefits:
>
> 1) It eliminates a huge dependency on TCL (and readline or similar lib),
> leaving o
Hi all,
I’ve written a replacement for traffic_shell, entirely in Perl using our Perl
Admin module. This has two benefits:
1) It eliminates a huge dependency on TCL (and readline or similar lib),
leaving only the hash TCL code left.
2) I feel it makes for a more manageable tool, that we can
