Why? Getting the content of the script is what GETSCRIPT is for.
When I gone through the draft, I co-related things with unix
commands
ls and cat.
If I just want to know whether a script is there or not,
LISTSCRIPT would
return all the script names.
like,
ls filename
In GETSCRIPT/DELETESCRIPT, I'm not clear whether
regular expression are entertained. Pls clarify.
Otherwice can we have a defined keyword like ALL.
Again, why? You use LISTSCRIPT to list the scripts available,
then use GETSCRIPT to get the scripts you want. Adding
facilities to GETSCRIPT to return more than one script would
require adding additional structure to responses to delimit
and identify multiple scripts.
I just thought that adding some more flexibility to that would
be a value add.
If I have n scripts and If I want to delete scripts which start
with a*. I will
do LISTSCRIPT, then delete one by one which requires more
server/client interactions.
Rather DELETESCRIPT a* which would remove all the scripts and
require only one server/
client interaction.
For GETSCRIPT, if I compare with 'cat'. I thought it is useful.
+MG
An optional argument specifying a pattern to match script
names to return would make sense. However, I don't think it
is particularly useful since it seems quite unlikely a single
user will have so many scripts that filtering the list is necessary.
In GETSCRIPT/DELETESCRIPT, I'm not clear whether
regular expression are entertained. Pls clarify.
Otherwice can we have a defined keyword like ALL.
Again, why? You use LISTSCRIPT to list the scripts available,
then use GETSCRIPT to get the scripts you want. Adding
facilities to GETSCRIPT to return more than one script would
require adding additional structure to responses to delimit
and identify multiple scripts.
GETSCRIPT ALL
DELETESCRIPT ALL
Thoughts please.
I don't any of these changes are either necessary or useful.
Ned