Re: analysis of YANG vs. RELAX NG

[Ladislav Lhotka <[e-mail]>]

Juergen Schoenwaelder píše v Po 03. 12. 2007 v 15:08 +0100:
> On Mon, Dec 03, 2007 at 02:56:02PM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> > Tim Bray p????e v Ne 02. 12. 2007 v 12:42 -0800:
> > > I've been staying off this thread because I don't understand what a
> > > NETCONF is or what you'd do with one.  But Julian's point is massively
> > > important.  If you're going to design your own modeling language, you
> > > need to spend a *lot* of time thinking about the extensibility model.
> > > It's really easy to get wrong.  -Tim
> > 
> > Indeed. An extensibility problem in YANG is IMO the leaf statement. It
> > is encoded as an XML element but the fact that it is declared as leaf
> > effectively makes it into an XML attribute: It is impossible to extend
> > it (e.g., add a qualifying subelement) without changing the leaf into
> > container. In a RELAX NG schema, if properly designed, such an extension
> > wouldn't have to touch the parent schema.
> 
> Leafs carry data and we strongly dislike mixed contents in NETCONF. So
> this is actually a YANG feature and not a bug.

It doesn't necessarily mean mixed content, just changing

<anel>XYZ</anel>

into

<anel>
  <anel-qual>ABC</anel-qual>
  <anel-value>XYZ</anel-value>
</anel>

Or, alternatively, the qualification info can be encoded in an
attribute, which doesn't seem to be possible in YANG at all. I know,
attributes are also frowned upon, but sometimes such a flexibility comes
handy - and, after all, in some situations the extra attribute can be
understood as metadata.

>  
> > Another problem might be the default statement in leaves (or it is
> > proper to say leafs here?:-) or typedefs. What if a standard data model
> > defines an item, say a hello timer, with such a default, but an
> > implementation wants to use another value for the default? Should it
> > come up with another schema?
> 
> No. There can only be one standard default. If you are thinking about
> reusable groupings, then defaults can actually be changed wherever you
> apply a grouping as far as I know.

Protocols specifications in RFCS usually say that a particular default
value SHOULD be something. So an impementation might have a reason for
using something else. In such cases, the standard data model thus cannot
use the default statement, right? 

Lada

-- 
Ladislav Lhotka, CESNET
PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C