You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@trafficserver.apache.org by Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org> on 2014/05/15 21:57:33 UTC
Future of traffic_shell ?
Hi all,
I’d like to remove the existing traffic_shell command. This is one of two remaining TCL places, and as far as I know, this is of little use. Now, a significant portion, but not all, of traffic_shell has been reimplemented as a Perl script. I’m hoping this is an adequate tool to at least achieve much of what people might be using traffic_shell for. What’s missing is the “config” portion, where traffic_shell implements basically the equivalent of calling traffic_line -s -v.
Unless there are objections to this, I’d like to proceed by
1. Eliminate existing traffic_shell
2. Replace it with traffic_shell[.pl], the perl script
3. Clean up the documentation. Much of it stays the same (the show: commands in the perl script are identical), but some would be defunct.
— Leif
Re: Future of traffic_shell ?
Posted by Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org>.
On May 16, 2014, at 9:30 AM, James Peach <jp...@apache.org> wrote:
> On May 15, 2014, at 12:57 PM, Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I’d like to remove the existing traffic_shell command. This is one of two remaining TCL places, and as far as I know, this is of little use. Now, a significant portion, but not all, of traffic_shell has been reimplemented as a Perl script. I’m hoping this is an adequate tool to at least achieve much of what people might be using traffic_shell for. What’s missing is the “config” portion, where traffic_shell implements basically the equivalent of calling traffic_line -s -v.
>>
>> Unless there are objections to this, I’d like to proceed by
>>
>> 1. Eliminate existing traffic_shell
>> 2. Replace it with traffic_shell[.pl], the perl script
>> 3. Clean up the documentation. Much of it stays the same (the show: commands in the perl script are identical), but some would be defunct.
>
> I don't think that traffic_shell is widely used, and I question it's usefulness in the first place. In general, I think the direction we should move is in a small suite of command line tools to supplement traffic_line. I think you are right that traffic_line is getting to be a kitchen sink :)
Yep. My preference would be to have at least two sinks; traffic_line as it has been for a long time is exclusively to talk to the mgmt port, whereas other tools (including traffic_shell) have been a hodge lodge. So, maybe a traffic_tool? I also feel that it’d be better with a Perl (or Python, or Go) than a C/C++ program for the kitchen sink of admin tools, since most such tools would be written by people with little or no C++ skills (and I wouldn’t expect them to).
>
> So I'm +1 on nuking TCL and willing to accept the demise of traffic_shell if that's what it takes. I'm ambivalent about replacing it with a perl version, since I don't think it is widely used.
Ok. The reason I wrote the perl script is because there were rumblings last time we tried to remove traffic_shell.
— Leif
Re: Future of traffic_shell ?
Posted by Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org>.
On May 16, 2014, at 9:30 AM, James Peach <jp...@apache.org> wrote:
> On May 15, 2014, at 12:57 PM, Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I’d like to remove the existing traffic_shell command. This is one of two remaining TCL places, and as far as I know, this is of little use. Now, a significant portion, but not all, of traffic_shell has been reimplemented as a Perl script. I’m hoping this is an adequate tool to at least achieve much of what people might be using traffic_shell for. What’s missing is the “config” portion, where traffic_shell implements basically the equivalent of calling traffic_line -s -v.
>>
>> Unless there are objections to this, I’d like to proceed by
>>
>> 1. Eliminate existing traffic_shell
>> 2. Replace it with traffic_shell[.pl], the perl script
>> 3. Clean up the documentation. Much of it stays the same (the show: commands in the perl script are identical), but some would be defunct.
>
> I don't think that traffic_shell is widely used, and I question it's usefulness in the first place. In general, I think the direction we should move is in a small suite of command line tools to supplement traffic_line. I think you are right that traffic_line is getting to be a kitchen sink :)
Yep. My preference would be to have at least two sinks; traffic_line as it has been for a long time is exclusively to talk to the mgmt port, whereas other tools (including traffic_shell) have been a hodge lodge. So, maybe a traffic_tool? I also feel that it’d be better with a Perl (or Python, or Go) than a C/C++ program for the kitchen sink of admin tools, since most such tools would be written by people with little or no C++ skills (and I wouldn’t expect them to).
>
> So I'm +1 on nuking TCL and willing to accept the demise of traffic_shell if that's what it takes. I'm ambivalent about replacing it with a perl version, since I don't think it is widely used.
Ok. The reason I wrote the perl script is because there were rumblings last time we tried to remove traffic_shell.
— Leif
Re: Future of traffic_shell ?
Posted by James Peach <jp...@apache.org>.
On May 15, 2014, at 12:57 PM, Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I’d like to remove the existing traffic_shell command. This is one of two remaining TCL places, and as far as I know, this is of little use. Now, a significant portion, but not all, of traffic_shell has been reimplemented as a Perl script. I’m hoping this is an adequate tool to at least achieve much of what people might be using traffic_shell for. What’s missing is the “config” portion, where traffic_shell implements basically the equivalent of calling traffic_line -s -v.
>
> Unless there are objections to this, I’d like to proceed by
>
> 1. Eliminate existing traffic_shell
> 2. Replace it with traffic_shell[.pl], the perl script
> 3. Clean up the documentation. Much of it stays the same (the show: commands in the perl script are identical), but some would be defunct.
I don't think that traffic_shell is widely used, and I question it's usefulness in the first place. In general, I think the direction we should move is in a small suite of command line tools to supplement traffic_line. I think you are right that traffic_line is getting to be a kitchen sink :)
So I'm +1 on nuking TCL and willing to accept the demise of traffic_shell if that's what it takes. I'm ambivalent about replacing it with a perl version, since I don't think it is widely used.
K
Re: Future of traffic_shell ?
Posted by James Peach <jp...@apache.org>.
On May 15, 2014, at 12:57 PM, Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I’d like to remove the existing traffic_shell command. This is one of two remaining TCL places, and as far as I know, this is of little use. Now, a significant portion, but not all, of traffic_shell has been reimplemented as a Perl script. I’m hoping this is an adequate tool to at least achieve much of what people might be using traffic_shell for. What’s missing is the “config” portion, where traffic_shell implements basically the equivalent of calling traffic_line -s -v.
>
> Unless there are objections to this, I’d like to proceed by
>
> 1. Eliminate existing traffic_shell
> 2. Replace it with traffic_shell[.pl], the perl script
> 3. Clean up the documentation. Much of it stays the same (the show: commands in the perl script are identical), but some would be defunct.
I don't think that traffic_shell is widely used, and I question it's usefulness in the first place. In general, I think the direction we should move is in a small suite of command line tools to supplement traffic_line. I think you are right that traffic_line is getting to be a kitchen sink :)
So I'm +1 on nuking TCL and willing to accept the demise of traffic_shell if that's what it takes. I'm ambivalent about replacing it with a perl version, since I don't think it is widely used.
K