[tarantool-patches] Re: [RFC] box/lua/console: Add console.fmt module

[Konstantin Osipov <kostja@tarantool.org>]

* Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com> [19/06/21 11:20]:
> Because I want to separate output engine from general
> console code. To me console is like a transport peer,
> which includes setting up a connection to remote machine,
> run evaluator and etc, but output formatter is like a
> separate engine so it should live in other module. Or
> you meant something else?

I don't care much about the internals here, but about the
consistency of the console api:
https://www.tarantool.io/en/doc/1.10/reference/reference_lua/console/
> 
> > > index 000000000..f860d76fb
> > > --- /dev/null
> > > +++ b/src/box/lua/console_fmt.lua
> > > @@ -0,0 +1,295 @@
> > > +-- # vim: ts=4 sw=4 et
> > > +
> > > +local internal = require('console')
> > > +
> > > +local console_formats = {
> > > +    ["lua"] = nil,
> > > +    ["yaml"] = nil
> > > +}
> > 
> > Why didn't  you use a git submodule with an established Lua
> > formatter?
> 
> I considered using vanilla "pretty print" or "serpent" but
> 
> 1) they are too huge
> 2) we need own extensions for decoding own subset of keywords
>    (for example box.NULL symbol)
> 
> so we simply can't use unmodified third party engines thus
> better to keep own much simpler (hopefully) engine.

I don't see why we can't fork serpent. But OK, provided you don't
want serpent, what can serpent do that we're going to miss in an
own implementation? Could you write down a summary so that we can
analyze this ahead of time?

-- 
Konstantin Osipov, Moscow, Russia