In situations like that should we enable the user to express his intent
thru boolean option --transaction, meaning all the values have to be set
atomically or not.
Just my idea.
Hans Hrasna wrote:
> I think 3 is what most people would expect.
>
> Personally I think 4 is the most desirable.
>
> Option 1 is better than nothing, in my opinion. The user should be
> warned that both "c" and "e" were not set.
>
> Bill Shannon wrote:
>> I asked a few people privately but I thought it would be good to get
>> more opinions...
>>
>> If I do
>>
>> asadmin set a=b c=d e=f
>>
>> and "c" is an invalid name, what do you expect to happen?
>>
>> 1. fail after setting "a"?
>>
>> 2. fail after setting "a" and "e"?
>>
>> 3. fail before setting anything?
>>
>> 4. succeed with a warning that "c" wasn't set?
>>
>>
>> Right now (with my pending changes) it does #1 because that's what
>> was easy to implement.
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_glassfish.dev.java.net
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_glassfish.dev.java.net
>>
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_glassfish.dev.java.net
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_glassfish.dev.java.net
>