pcp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [pcp] pmval -i vs pmstore -i

To: Ken McDonell <kenj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [pcp] pmval -i vs pmstore -i
From: Marko Myllynen <myllynen@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 12:40:04 +0300
Cc: pcp developers <pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <57312DBB.3030308@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Organization: Red Hat
References: <573076AF.8000009@xxxxxxxxxx> <2067663739.46369124.1462835555164.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx> <57312DBB.3030308@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: Marko Myllynen <myllynen@xxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.0
Hi,

On 2016-05-10 03:39, Ken McDonell wrote:
> On 10/05/16 09:12, Nathan Scott wrote:
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>
>>> pmval and pmstore are the two clients which allow specifying the
>>> targeted instances with -i. pmval, like most other clients also accept
>>> arguments in this manner:
>>>
>>> $ pmval kernel.all-load -i "'1 minute'"
> 
> I believe this to be the side-effect of GNU getopt(3) ... I personally
> think this "flexibility" is sloppy, ill-conceived and not necessary.
> 
> I would much prefer to concentrate on the form ...
> 
> $ pmval -i "'1 minute'" kernel.all-load
> 
> which matches the original design and implementation (of Unix, not just
> PCP).

The PCP zsh completions I just posted shows to the reason why the
admittedly sloppy way is sometimes useful:

http://oss.sgi.com/pipermail/pcp/2016-May/010476.html

(See the instances section there.)

Thanks,

-- 
Marko Myllynen

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>