Skip to content

Update configuration, launcher interface #6041

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
fehguy opened this issue Jul 13, 2017 · 2 comments
Open

Update configuration, launcher interface #6041

fehguy opened this issue Jul 13, 2017 · 2 comments

Comments

@fehguy
Copy link
Contributor

fehguy commented Jul 13, 2017

As the codegen model has evolved, we have a challenge with the configuration interface. Specifically with the introduction of the airline toolkit for parsing the CLI options, we've ended up with a bit of an abomination of arguments and system properties, all with the ability to be overridden with a configuration file.

The challenge (and why I pointed out airline) is that different targets will need have different needs for configuration options. There is no package in javascript, for example, but we always have a set of common needs, such as reading the specification from a specific location, etc.

I would like to redo the launcher aspect of codegen to include the following:

  • Removal of the strict, annotation-based airline library
  • Addition of another CLI parsing library that allows for short and extended args (-h and --host, for example)
  • Standardization of some core arguments to parse. These will be constant across all targets
  • A clear extension mechanism for adding new arguments for a specific library with descriptions and helpful information
  • A method to load the arguments from a single JSON or YAML file
  • Removal of all system properties when running the codegen. These are creating issues with CI tools and are just ugly
@wing328
Copy link
Contributor

wing328 commented Jul 13, 2017

FYI. @ePaul has made some enhancements to CLI options via #5147

@ePaul
Copy link
Contributor

ePaul commented Jul 15, 2017

Sounds like a good idea.

For the system properties removal stuff, I started in #4788 (with abandoned pull requests #5119, #5067, #5066). Feel free to use some of that code, or tell me the plan, I can potentially update the PRs to fit the new plan on how to do it.

@HugoMario HugoMario self-assigned this Oct 13, 2017
@webron webron removed their assignment Mar 25, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants