Re: [netmod] attributes in draft-lhotka-netmod-yang-json

[Andy Bierman <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 7:10 AM, Ladislav Lhotka <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> On 26 Mar 2014, at 14:57, Martin Bjorklund <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> > Ladislav Lhotka <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >> Martin Bjorklund <[e-mail]> writes:
> >>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> Here's yet another attempt to handle attributes in JSON, without
> >>> changing the encoding for the case that there are no attributes
> >>> present.
> >>>
> >>> In all examples, the attributes "inactive" and "etag" are present.
> >>>
> >>> Attributes are encoded differently depending on the type of object:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> leaf
> >>> ----
> >>>
> >>> Encode the attributes as a sibling to the leaf.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>  leaf foo {
> >>>    type string;
> >>>  }
> >>>
> >>>  "foo": "some value";
> >>>  "@foo": {
> >>>     "inactive": true,
> >>>     "etag": "...";
> >>>   }
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> list instance
> >>> -------------
> >>>
> >>> Encode the attributes within the list instance.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>  list bar {
> >>>    key name;
> >>>    leaf name {
> >>>      type string;
> >>>    }
> >>>    ...
> >>>  }
> >>>
> >>>  "bar": [
> >>>     {
> >>>        "@bar": {
> >>>           "inactive": true,
> >>>           "etag": "..."
> >>>         }
> >>>         "name": "instance name";
> >>>      }]
> >>>
> >>
> >> This could be ambiguous:
> >>
> >> list bar {
> >>  key name;
> >>  leaf name { ... }
> >>  leaf bar { ... }
> >> }
> >>
> >> Then you don't know whether the attributes belong to the list entry
> >> or to the contained leaf.
> >
> > Right. Then we use "@@bar" for the list / container attributes.
>
> OK, then this scheme is fine with me.
>
>
Looks more complicated than other solution proposals.
Looks very cumbersome to implement, especially for leaf-lists.
Maybe it will take an interim meeting to figure out how to agree
on an attribute encoding for JSON.




> Lada
>
> >
> >
> > /martin
> >
>


Andy