Re: analysis of YANG vs. RELAX NG

[Balazs Lengyel <[e-mail]>]

Hello,
A late reply.
I agree with Juergen, Andy et al. but I also have anther reason.

Imagine when you have one big model that is modified by a 5 liner a bit. Then you get the next 
five liner, the next one. Then you get a five liner that modifies a previous modification.
To understand what really goes on in the node you have to know all the little 5 liners.

In Yang you can at least understand the basic model and consider the rest as extensions, 
because the basic model is not redefined only extended.

Balazs

Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Randy Presuhn píše v Po 03. 12. 2007 v 12:01 -0800:
> 
>> I strongly agree with Andy and Juergen.  "Mushy" definitions
>> are disastrous for interoperability.
> 
> I think it's a misunderstanding. I am not pleading for fuzzy (is it
> approximately what "mushy" means?;-) data models, the models can and
> should be simple and unambiguous, I am talking about additional
> flexibility for model *designers*, i.e., straightforward means for
> reusing and extending existing models into new models (also by adding
> structure to former leaves, why not?), and here I think YANG is rather
> rigid when compared to RELAX NG.
> 
> Lada
> 

-- 
Balazs Lengyel                       Ericsson Hungary Ltd.
TSP System Manager
ECN: 831 7320                        Fax: [phone]
Tel: [phone]     email: [e-mail]