[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: NETCONF Instance Identifiers
On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 07:49:31PM +0200, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> > Using xpath (or a subset of it) is fine with me. I note, however, that
> > once we go down this path, we have a situation where we use instance
> > identifiers where subtree filtering is unable to select such
> > instances.
>
> You mean b/c of the use of position()? I assume that position() would
> be used only when the data model indicates that there is a set of
> instances, but they don't have a key. So I guess the real issue is
> that if the data model allows instances without keys, then subtree
> filtering can't be used to select such instances.
This argument sounds backwards to me. We either allow things like
position() or we don't.
If we allow such things (which I do like and support), then we simply
have an instance identification mechanism which has more expressive
power than subtree filtering has (and it is IMHO irrelevant whether
you have other keys that can identify the same instance or not).
I strongly dislike an approach where certain xpath features (like
position()) may only be used under some conditions. Given the SMIv2
experience with special cases and the implied consistency language
rules, I strongly prefer to avoid special case constructions.
/js
--
Juergen Schoenwaelder International University Bremen
<http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/> P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany
--
to unsubscribe send a message to netconf-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/netconf/>