[Koha-devel] Bug 5636

[LAURENT Henri-Damien]

Le 12/12/2011 17:24, Ian Walls a écrit :
> 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'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.
> 
> So, I don'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?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 
> -Ian
> 
Hi,
in my opinion, it is not "dual-purpose" script,
command-line or web interface, it is the same process you want.
duplicating code and editing to make the code commandline compliant
would be far harder to maintain and keep synched than having the script
callable via command-line and web. In my opinion, we have enough
exemples of copy paste edit code in Koha, to see how un maintainable
that behaviour is and to be willing to restrain from that from now on.
This is my opinion.
cheers
-- 
Henri-Damien LAURENT
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 11:07 AM, Paul Poulain
> <paul.poulain at biblibre.com <mailto:paul.poulain at biblibre.com>> wrote:
> 
>     Le 12/12/2011 14:06, Marcel de Rooy a écrit :
>     > Hi all,
>     > Patch 5636 should be next in passing qa now, but these questions
>     > remained open:
>     > Style question to the community:  should core pages in the staff
>     client
>     > (like
>     >
>     > tools/cleanborrowers.pl <http://cleanborrowers.pl>) have both a
>     templated page in the staff client
>     > AND a
>     > command-line presence, or should the commandline tool be a separate
>     > script in misc/?
>     > At this time, there doesn't seem to be any precedent for inclusion in
>     > the core
>     >
>     > script.  Before passing this patch for QA, I'd like to get some
>     feedback, as
>     > this may both open doors for us, as well as create additional work
>     to create
>     > consistency of implementation for existing jobs.
> 
>     My comment here :
>     if an ENH don't break any existing behaviour, do what it announces, and
>     is consistent with existing features and code, then we must welcome any
>     patch and don't request for an improvement of the improvement: if you
>     want more, just do it yourself, everybody is acting on a volunteer
>     basis !
> 
>     In this case (speaking as RM here, not as owner of the company
>     submitting the patch ;-) ), it should just be "passed QA", as it passes
>     the 3 questions: don't break existing behaviour, do what it announces,
>     consistent with existing feature & code. (double check if there can be a
>     security issue !)
> 
>     --
>     Paul POULAIN
>     http://www.biblibre.com
>     Expert en Logiciels Libres pour l'info-doc
>     Tel : (33) 4 91 81 35 08
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Ian Walls
> Lead Development Specialist
> ByWater Solutions
> ALA Midwinter Booth #2048
> Phone # (888) 900-8944
> http://bywatersolutions.com
> ian.walls at bywatersolutions.com <mailto:ian.walls at bywatersolutions.com>
> Twitter: @sekjal
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Koha-devel mailing list
> Koha-devel at lists.koha-community.org
> http://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-devel
> website : http://www.koha-community.org/
> git : http://git.koha-community.org/
> bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/