I want to make the CommandBox shell as powerful and expressive as possible, but at some point it may just be best for someone create a custom command and do their logic directly in CFML. The above tickets would help people really create mashups of CFML, native OS commands, and CommandBox commands. Do you guys think the above tickets would be useful in CommandBox?
Yes, please. Better still, if you could use double #’s to run cfml in using the native function call syntax as well (e.g. CommandBox> #hash(mypass)# ) so you could copy/paste if you wanted to test something.
Not sure I would use this one much. Then again, I might find a use for it if it was available.
> Yes, please. Better still, if you could use double #’s to run cfml in using the native function call syntax as well (e.g. CommandBox> #hash(mypass)# ) so you could copy/paste if you wanted to test something.
You can do that already with the REPL command:
REPL “hash( ‘myPass’ )”
The problem with that is you can’t (easily) pipe data into the functions as it requires you to build up the entire string first, escaping any quotes, etc. The idea with this ticket was to use CommandBox’s inbuilt parameter handling to allow you to get data into the functions like so.
cat password.txt | #hash
> Not sure I would use this one much
Thanks for the feedback. For what it’s worth, this is something Bash does.
Ah, you mean to use the variables read in - I didn’t read this part in the ticket closely "In the example above, the contents of the defaultServer.txt file will be passed in as the value of the “name” parameter to the “server start” command.” I was thinking there was an additional declaration step that would be necessary. I like this then. I could see it used in all sorts of ways - especially when building CommandBox commands
Oh and while you are at it, some better handling for rewrite rules would be great, Tuckey just doesn’t always cut it, as previously discussed… and don’t forget about this one:
