Jason Lee wrote:
> To be honest, I've never liked the "_" prefix for hiding commands (or
> understood why some have "_" and others have "__").
"_" == hidden
"__" == extra special secret hidden. The admin team sends ninja zombies
to 'deal' with any user that mistakenly calls one of these commands.
O O
(___)
\ / big smile
\___/
but seriously.. I hope that we do not start to generate a bunch of
hidden options. If we find it useful, there is the possibility that
users will find it useful.
vbk
> I understand it's easier to implement, but it's also pretty much a
> magic string, which is rarely, I think, good a idea. I'd much rather
> see a parameter on the attribute, but that ship has probably already
> sailed for the commands, and perhaps it's best to be consistent on the
> parameters. Consistency aside, for what it's worth, I vote against
> the magic string. :)
>
> On 8/27/10 1:49 AM, Bill Shannon wrote:
>> Just like we have hidden commands (name starts with "_"),
>> Bhakti has asked for hidden options to commands. It's easy
>> to change the code that generates the usage message to ignore
>> options that start with "_".
>>
>> Harder would be to add @Param(hidden=true).
>>
>> Does anyone object to doing the same for options as we do for commands?
>>
>> So, if you wanted a hidden "force" option, you would declare it
>> @Param(name="_force") and specify it on the command line as "--_force".
>>
>> Of course, we could use any other special character we want. I just
>> chose "_" for consistency with hiddden commands. We could, for
>> instance,
>> use "-", giving us a CLI option of "---force", which looks a bit nicer
>> but may be too subtle and easily confused.
>>
>> Comments?
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: admin-unsubscribe_at_glassfish.dev.java.net
>> For additional commands, e-mail: admin-help_at_glassfish.dev.java.net
>>
>
>