What should the CLI syntax be for future HPUX SW deployment tools?

[IMteam]

We are investigating the command line syntax for future tools in the software management and deployment space on HP-UX. Your input will help determine the direction we need to implement such tools.

Please note this will not affect the support of the current command line syntax.

Here are the alternatives we are considering:
1. A family of similar "sw" commands. There is one command for every type of task.

a. The command set using one prefix “sw”
For example, swinstall [options]
swremove [options]
swverify [options]
swupdate [options]
swdrdcreate [options]
swdrdmodify [options]
swdrdmount [options]
swiux [options]
swiuxrecovery [options]
swiuxsource [options]
b. The command for each area will have its own prefix.
For example, swinstall [options]
swremove [options]
swverify [options]
swminstall [options]
swmupdate [options]
drdcreate [options]
drdmodify [options]
drdmount [options]
igniteclient [options]
igniterecovery [options]
ignitesource [options]
2. Single command with mode keyword as first argument to indicate task to perform.

a. One command for each area
For example, swm (install | remove | verify | update) [options]
drd (create | modify | mount) [options]
ignite (add_client | make_recovery | add_source) [options]
b. One command to do everything.
For example, swm install [options]
swm update [options]
swm drdcreate [options]
swm igniteclient [options]

Question:
Which alternatives (1a, 1b, 2a or 2b) do you prefer? And why?

DRD stands for Dynamic Root Disk. A copy of the root disk(s) can be modified without
impacting running system. It is similar to IBM Alternate Root Disk and Sun Live Upgrade.

Please take a brief moment and provide comments. Your input is very much appreciated!

[Pete Randall]

I prefer 2b because it's most similar to the present.


Pete

[Alex Lavrov. · Accepted solution]

I'll go for ** 1a **. This way all the commands start with the same prefix, so if I forgot one of them, I can always write "sw" and then with autocomlete I'll see all of them.

Why not the others:
1b - too much prefixes to remember, makes a bit mess, my opinion.

2a - same as 1b, plus long man pages for each command.

2b - I'll always have to look in huuge man page. It's like the man pages of "omnidb" and "omnirpt", too many arguments and long man pages.

Hope it helps ;)

[IMteam]

Pete, could you clarify what you mean by "its most similar to the present"?

Choice 2b is actually the most dissimilar from the sw*, update-ux, and ignite commands today. With 2b, we would only have one command to do everything the current set of commands now do.

[Rick Garland]

Do 1a - keep like commands similar but yet there is enough difference to not cause problems

[John Payne_2]

I'm good with any of them. 2b really makes quite a bit of sense to me. I command (swm), some sort of handle, then options, that I assume would be common for all the handles.

John

[Pete Randall]

Sorry - finger check - I meant 1b.

I could honestly live with any of the scenarios you present, but, unless there's some need being addressed by a change, I don't see any need to change. Any time I don't need to re-learn how to do something, I'm all for it.


Pete

[Steven E. Protter]

I like 1a or 1b.

1a seems most compatible with what we use today, swinstall -x autoreboot = true -s full path \*

Though cryptic to learn, many of us have taken the time to learn the existing syntax and that skill set should not be thrown out the window.

1b meets the familiarity test, yet seems to have some enhanced features that will assist in system or root disk cloning. I don't do this a lot, but there seems plenty of demand for it based on the volume of questions posted to itrc.

In summary, I'd like a system that preserves current command line syntax, yet allows for enhanced functionality.

SEP

[Victor BERRIDGE]

Greetings,
Ia or 2b suits me.....

What I like in 2b is that I have a (very) poor memory so swm would be THE word to never forget (I hope) so I can type man or a shortcut to all the other commands related would be nice...

All the best
Victor

[IMteam]

With regard to 2a/2b, we would still keep the existing CLI's that you are familiar with (so swinstall will continue to work). However there will be new command(s) for new functionality - or for features that would have been difficult to add to the old commands without breaking compatibility. These command(s) would also serve as a common entry point for entering the TUI/GUI.

Issuing a command such as "swm -?" would give you the list of major modes that can be used.

The swm(1M) man page would have a general description of the capabilities of each mode, and then references to specific man pages for each mode (swm-install(1M) for example). Similar to the sh(1) man page.

[Pushkar Pandey]

I thinks 1a makes sense as Rick, Andrew and Steve also has pointed out.

Thanks.

[A. Clay Stephenson]

My preference is 1a. The common sw prefex makes looking for the commands and man pages much easier. The man page for the 2x option would be huge and I prefer many concise man pages to 1 humongous one.

I find it hard to believe that it would be all the difficult to add options to the sw* commands that would leave the traditional behavior unchanged but permit special modes for GUI/TUI interfaces. If that there's a real problem for you boys then somebody needs to learn you command line parsing and environment variables and such.

[H.Merijn Brand (procura]

I'd go for 2a, and if the majority complains 1a

Why 2a? Because

1. It most reflects intuitivity
2. It most resembles other software packagers like rpm

In 2a I would go even further and not allow the full commands, but

swm -i

to equal

swm --install

-v => --verify
-e => --erase or --remove

Please LOOK at what the rest of the world already uses, and make it easy to move to HP-UX

swverify cound now just either be a wrapper that calls 'swm --verify' or be (how user-friendly do you want to be) a supported recognition in main (argc, argv) to see under what name the program was called in argv[0]

PS: And if you are going to have a look at ignite, PLEASE, give us an option to create CD/DVD iso images instead of make_tape_recovery! (Yes, we also need a backport of this for HP-UX 11.00)

Enjoy, Have FUN! H.Merijn

[Rodney Hills]

I would have to go with 2b. Not only is it familiar, but when searching for commands it works better with "man -k".

Also as individual commands, things like security and accounting can be done by each command type.

2a and 2b would have huge man pages...

-- Rod Hills

[Naveej.K.A]

Hi,

I would go with 2a because of the same reason Merijn has pointed out. The command format is similar to Linux command format.

2b would make the command very big (or atleast it looks big) Same is the case with 1a and 1b.

We can't easily forget the command format used in 2a.


Best wishes,
Naveej

[dirk dierickx]

2a all the way if it was up to me.
it keeps everything simple, which is the spirit of unix :)

[Borislav Perkov]

Hi,

I would go with 1a. You have same prefix sw for the commands and one command per utility.

Regards,
Borislav

[Geoff Wild]

I like 2a as well - as it is close to rpm.

2b is too far - as drdcrfeate and ignite are different products - too unique to be included in a single command.

1a isn't too bad - having a similar prefix would be benificial to new comers.

Rgds...Geoff

[Suraj Singh_1]

Greetings!!

Apart from 1a, which is very similar to the current sw commands, i would prefer 2b.

Reason:
1. As other have pointed out, it is very similar to linux's rpm command. Single command to install, verify, remove packages.

2. A single man page to refer to, to perform any task. I am sure the man page would be bulky, but it would be logically divided, and we would know exactly where to look for what we are actually looking.

Regards,
Suraj

[Robert Bennett_3]

My vote would be for 1a.

- similar to what we have today and I'm an old dog.
- searching history would be simple (/sw)
- clean, precise man pages

my 2 cents ;-}

[Devender Khatana]

Greetings

Alongwith currently running 1a I would recommend 2b.

1a beacuse we are using it for quite long now and 2b because it will make it more simple and will still keep them divided by class. So in my opinion let the currently running commands be there and provide something like 2b.

Also chnage it for TUI/GUI so that after running it prompts us which way to go.

Regards,
Devender

[Fred Ruffet]

I would prefer 2b. It's true that man page will be as huge as sendmail's, but it's more intuitive (has Merijn already said).

It would split on separate domains and offer all functions for a domain in one command. Seems very good to me.

There are still two bad points wbout this, I must admit :
. Existing scripts will have to be rewriten with new commands. Even if commands change, you should look for "compatible" output for easier parse of existing sripts.
. Unix philosophy is to have commands that do few things, but well (for example : wc, du...). "|" is here to combine and do complex things. Now, you can consider that sw commands are rather utilities and not simple programs...

Regards,

Fred

[Marlou Everson]

I would prefer 1a or 1b. Usually when I am doing this type of work, I am focusing on one task. For example, I'm just doing swinstall. Even over the long run, I use some commands much more than others. With the commands identified by their functions, the man pages are shorter. If they are grouped in one big command (2a,2b), I have to ignore the parts that don't apply to what I am trying to accomplish at the moment. With 1a or 1b, I will have the options listed that just apply to what I am doing. No extra clutter!

I hate omnirpt -report. I want to do a report. Why do I have to do extra typing and add -report.

Just keep the "See Also" at the end of the man page updated with the related commands.

Marlou