hugin-devs team mailing list archive
-
hugin-devs team
-
Mailing list archive
-
Message #01991
[Bug 789445] Re: 2011.2: Naming Convention For Scripts
** Tags added: 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.
References