Re: [Ipmitool-devel] SOL payload instance

[Kevin H. <kev...@gm...>]

For what it's worth, the "activate [<usessolforkeepalive|nokeepalive>]"
syntax is already in ipmitool.  I am only adding the payload instance
parameter.  That may not have been clear.

I'll look at the event sub-command and see if it looks like a good match.

  - Kevin

On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 10:52 PM, Duncan Idaho <dun...@gm...> wrote:

> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 1:29 AM, Kevin Hart <kev...@gm...>
> wrote:
> > I'm thinking along the lines of
> > SOL Commands: info [<channel number>]
> > .
> > .
> > .
> >                           activate [<usessolforkeepalive|nokeepalive>]
> > [<payload instance>]
> >
> > or
> >                           activate [<usessolforkeepalive|nokeepalive>]
> > [instance <payload instance>]
> >
> >   - Kevin
> >
>
> I must say I had trouble reading options/parameters. Not that they
> don't make sense, but absence of "white spaces" makes them hard to
> read. Just an observation
> Wouldn't it be better to get inspiration from 'event' sub-command
> where numbers are used as aliases for events? Although, this would
> mean to read help, which user is going to do anyway, and remember
> option:number alias.
>
> As for whether to have '[<payload instance>]' or '[instance <payload
> instance>]'; it depends whether an extension is planned/possible or
> not. The latter allows extensions the former does not. *shrug*
>
> Now, the good and the bad. The good - observations of user whom has no
> idea what-how-why-etc. The bad - I have no idea how it should work,
> I'm not using SOL. It's bad because it can lead to even worse
> usability for people whom are really going to use this feature. :)
>
> My $0.02 USD.
>
> --Duncan
>
> >
> > On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 7:27 AM, Duncan Idaho <dun...@gm...>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 11:13 PM, Kevin Hart <kev...@gm...
> >
> >> wrote:
> >> > I would like to add an option to specify the Payload instance when
> >> > activating SOL payloads.  Is anyone already doing this, or does anyone
> >> > have a preference for what the command-line should look like?
> >> >
> >> >  - Kevin
> >>
> >> Hello Kevin,
> >>
> >> I don't think anybody is working at it. This project is flip-flopping
> >> between undead-dead state.
> >> As for preferences, could you, please, elaborate a bit what is
> >> required, what user input will be given? Looking at how many options
> >> ipmitool has already, I'm not sure if adding yet another one is the
> >> best choice. Although it might be the only one in the end.
> >>
> >> --Duncan
> >
> >
>