hugin-devs team mailing list archive

[Yuv <789445@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Public bug reported:

> > * Naming conventions for scripts.  Actually we'd already such a naming
> > convention for CLI tools, but while the CLI tools are only a dozen or so
> > (and there are legacy aspects to be considered), there will hopefully be
> > hundreds plugins/scripts.  I like the approach of pfstools - all the
> > tools start with pfs, so I can type `pfs` and hit the tabulator key to
> > get a list of the 34 CLI commands that are installed by the tool.
> 
> If we have standard directories for the scripts, I think we don't
> really need naming conventions.

I disagree with you, Kay.  I see at least to very compelling reasons to
have naming conventions.

#1:  I will use these scripts on the CLI.  There will be dozens if not
hundreds of them.  Remembering names that don't have some system is a
pain.  I particularly like how pfstools handle this.  Enter pfs and the
tab key into your Kubuntu bash shell and you'll see a clean list of the
tools available.  If I could go back in the history of Hugin, I would
suggest giving plain names to all CLI tools, starting with pto, so it
would be pto_cpfind, pto_warn (instead of nona), pto_blend (instead of
enblend) etc.  and pto_check and pto_start etc...

#2 these scripts will be uploaded to a common public repository.  having
the same name for two scripts from two different authors is calling for
trouble.  I have a strong preference for a single name space for all
scripts to prevent ambiguity.

So I am herewith suggest that we need a naming convention.  To be
developed here.

** Affects: hugin
     Importance: Wishlist
         Status: New


** Tags: hpi hsi

-- 
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Hugin
Developers, which is subscribed to Hugin.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/789445

Title:
  2011.2: Naming Convention For Scripts

Status in Hugin - Panorama Tools GUI:
  New

Bug description:
  > > * Naming conventions for scripts.  Actually we'd already such a naming
  > > convention for CLI tools, but while the CLI tools are only a dozen or so
  > > (and there are legacy aspects to be considered), there will hopefully be
  > > hundreds plugins/scripts.  I like the approach of pfstools - all the
  > > tools start with pfs, so I can type `pfs` and hit the tabulator key to
  > > get a list of the 34 CLI commands that are installed by the tool.
  > 
  > If we have standard directories for the scripts, I think we don't
  > really need naming conventions.

  I disagree with you, Kay.  I see at least to very compelling reasons
  to have naming conventions.

  #1:  I will use these scripts on the CLI.  There will be dozens if not
  hundreds of them.  Remembering names that don't have some system is a
  pain.  I particularly like how pfstools handle this.  Enter pfs and
  the tab key into your Kubuntu bash shell and you'll see a clean list
  of the tools available.  If I could go back in the history of Hugin, I
  would suggest giving plain names to all CLI tools, starting with pto,
  so it would be pto_cpfind, pto_warn (instead of nona), pto_blend
  (instead of enblend) etc.  and pto_check and pto_start etc...

  #2 these scripts will be uploaded to a common public repository.
  having the same name for two scripts from two different authors is
  calling for trouble.  I have a strong preference for a single name
  space for all scripts to prevent ambiguity.

  So I am herewith suggest that we need a naming convention.  To be
  developed here.