Re: [GNUnet-developers] GNUNET_PROGRAM* option evaluation does not work as expected

[Christian Grothoff]

On 3/15/19 4:06 PM, Schanzenbach, Martin wrote:
> No it was not.
> I am pretty sure that instead of calling gnunet-uri as a binary from a binary 
> is pretty nonsensical.

Why? I see nothing wrong with that. It's not like this matters for
performance or that starting gnunet-uri has any other real disadvantage
here that I can think of.

> Instead, gnunet-qr should just do what gnunet-uri does with the uri.
> If we need to share code between them, fine, then refactor. But imitating 
> python behavior here is not good style.
> Hence the CLI tools should be built using GNUNET_PROGRAM_run ().

Ok, now I undestand why you suggested GNUNET_PROGRAM_run(), but I don't
see this as "Python" behavior, more like UNIX behavior ;-).

>> On 15. Mar 2019, at 06:10, Christian Grothoff <address@hidden> wrote:
>>
>> Signed PGP part
>> On 3/13/19 6:25 PM, Hartmut Goebel wrote:
>>> Martin wrote:
>>>> The first thing you should do it use GNUNET_PROGRAM*.
>>
>> Actually, that advice was slightly off: as you don't want/need the
>> scheduler, you don't need GNUNET_PROGRAM_run() but just GNUNET_GETOPT_*
>> for gnunet-qr.
>>
>>
>>
>

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature