Worst API

[tetriscollated]

I know that the API isn't supported and its undocumented and all. But if Vault is being touted as the so-called VSS replacement, it fails miserably with respect to the API support.

VSS had a simple, easy-to-use and no-nonsense COM interface. You could connect, get a file to where, how and named the way you wanted in as little as 4-5 lines of code.

With Vault, the API is too elaborate and cumbersome to use. Most users who use the API are simply trying to automate specific tasks (mostly gets for builds, labels etc). Vault's API simply makes you jump through too many hoops and 99% trial-and-error/guesswork to get the calls correct.

And yes, to reiterate, I understand the API is "unsupported". But this is ain't freeware and the licenses cost $$. The so-called documentation (or lack thereof) seems to indicate that this is not a mature product.

Get the API cleaned up and get it documented and kindly refrain from any comparisons to VSS till then.

Regards
Julian T
Bournemouth, UK

[lbauer]

If the API is too cumbersome, we'd suggest using the Vault Command Line Client. It's fully supported and fully documented. It's a good choice for automating tasks such as gets for builds, labeling, etc.

It's called vault.exe and is included with the Vault GUI client installation.

[tetriscollated]

[quote="lbauer"]If the API is too cumbersome, we'd suggest using the Vault Command Line Client. It's fully supported and fully documented. It's a good choice for automating tasks such as gets for builds, labeling, etc.

It's called vault.exe and is included with the Vault GUI client installation.[/quote]

To the best of my knowledge, the command line utility is unsupported and a band-aid at best. Regardless, VSS has a similar command line client, but to automate tasks with specific, custom operations and workflows that can be tracked and are granular, one has to use the API. There is no point in writing a batch file with a bunch of EXE calls if you are unable to dynamically query status, retrieve object information and such.

The fact remains that the API has a long way to go before it and for that matter Vault itself, can be deemed mature products.

[ericsink]

If the API is too cumbersome, we'd suggest using the Vault Command Line Client. It's fully supported and fully documented. It's a good choice for automating tasks such as gets for builds, labeling, etc.

It's called vault.exe and is included with the Vault GUI client installation.

To the best of my knowledge, the command line utility is unsupported and a band-aid at best. Regardless, VSS has a similar command line client, but to automate tasks with specific, custom operations and workflows that can be tracked and are granular, one has to use the API. There is no point in writing a batch file with a bunch of EXE calls if you are unable to dynamically query status, retrieve object information and such.

The fact remains that the API has a long way to go before it and for that matter Vault itself, can be deemed mature products.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. I suppose that if I tried to form a broad opinion of the Vault product by looking only at the Client API, I would probably arrive at an opinion which is similar to yours. That's why we carefully set expectations around that particular aspect of Vault, labeling the API clearly as "unsupported", in the hope that we will scare away people who expect it to be what it is currently not. But like you said, you already understand that.

However, I would like to clarify one thing about the command-line client. I'm not sure where you get the impression that it is "unsupported and a band-aid at best". I will concede that it is not a complete substitute for a well-documented API, which is what you and I both wish Vault had. However, the command-line client *is* a supported and important feature of the Vault product. It is quite powerful, quite well maintained, and quite widely used. If you have a specific criticism of the command-line client, we would be glad to listen.