Ian,<br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">My difficulty with this patch is that it sets precedent for implementing both commandline and staff client interfaces for a single script.  Up until now, that&#39;s not be the case (as far as my research has shown; counter-examples welcome).  I just think we need, for consistency sake, to either make this the standard practice, or require separate cronjobs. <br>

<br>So, I don&#39;t have any issue with the feature, but the potential shift in coding practices that the patch represents.  Is the rest of the Koha developer community comfortable with having dual-purpose scripts like this?  Are there are any best practices that can be cited for or against such practice?<br>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>I&#39;m not really sure why this should be an issue. Consistency is nice, but it seems to me there are very few scripts that would be usable both via server and via command line, simply because the different requirements of the two. So consistency won&#39;t be greatly impacted. The important thing is making sure that things are documented (and this script is documented, though I suppose POD would be even nicer, if someone was in the mood.). If a script can handle either option, though, I see no reason not to. Provided the bulk of the work is done in the C4 or Koha namespace, which, for this patch, is true.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Regards,</div><div>Jared</div></div><div><br></div>-- <br>Jared Camins-Esakov<div>Bibliographer, C &amp; P Bibliography Services, LLC</div><div>(phone) +1 (917) 727-3445</div><div>(e-mail) <a href="mailto:jcamins@cpbibliography.com" target="_blank">jcamins@cpbibliography.com</a></div>
<div>(web) <a href="http://www.cpbibliography.com/" target="_blank">http://www.cpbibliography.com/</a></div><br>