Re: analysis of YANG vs. RELAX NG

["Rohan Mahy" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Martin,

On Nov 28, 2007 2:02 PM, Martin Bjorklund <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> "Rohan Mahy" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > Setting that aside for a moment, even if half the statements in a schema
> are
> > annotation, the other half can still do something very, very useful.
>  They
> > can validate the syntax and structure of the XML received on the wire
> > automatically in a piece of code (the XML parser) that the
> implementation
> > probably already has.
>
> Note that in order to validate the different NETCONF messages, you
> would either need more than one schema, or a very lax schema which
> will validate messages/documents which are not actually valid NETCONF.
> As one very simple example, suppose we have these in the data model:
>
>   leaf ifAdminStatus {
>      config true;
>      type ...;
>   }
>   leaf ifOperStatus {
>      config false;
>      type ...;
>   }
>
> In a <get-config> only ifAdminStatus can occur.  In a <get> both can
> occur.  In an <edit-config>, there can be an nc:operation attribute on
> the ifAdminStatus, but that attribute cannot be present in a <get>.


You can express this very easily like this:

<define name="get-config" combine="interleave">
  <ref name="ifAdminStatus"/>
</define>

<define name="get" combine="interleave">
  <ref name="ifAdminStatus"/>
</define>

<define name="get" combine="interleave">
  <ref name="ifOperStatus"/>
</define>

or in short form:

get-config &= ifAdminStatus
get &= ifAdminStatus
get &= ifOperStatus


thanks,
-rohan