Re: [netmod] Query about augmenting module from submodule in YANG 1.0

["Ivory, William" <[e-mail]>]

...  except that if the whole reason for splitting into submodules was to allow the submodules to belong to different packages in our system, combining them back again is not possible.  I wouldn't be splitting them unless I needed to for good reason.

William

-----Original Message-----
From: Alex Campbell [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: 22 August 2017 23:28
To: Ivory, William <[e-mail]>; 'Robert Wilton' <[e-mail]>; '[e-mail]' <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [netmod] Query about augmenting module from submodule in YANG 1.0

Hi,

I'm not Rob, but my understanding is that if a module author wanted to migrate to YANG 2.0, they could merge their submodules back into the main module - which is not a difficult procedure and does not break compatibility with clients.

Alex
________________________________________
From: netmod <[e-mail]> on behalf of Ivory, William <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, 22 August 2017 1:44 a.m.
To: 'Robert Wilton'; '[e-mail]'
Subject: Re: [netmod] Query about augmenting module from submodule in YANG 1.0

Hi Rob,

That would make it very hard to update existing 1.x YANG models to use new features in YANG 2.x if they used submodules.  Maybe that's something that no one would ever consider doing anyway, or maybe YANG 1.1 already has similar differences to 1.0?  I had (perhaps naively) assumed that you could migrate a namespace / model from YANG 1.0 to 2.0?

Regards,

William

-----Original Message-----
From: netmod [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Robert Wilton
Sent: 21 August 2017 11:24
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [netmod] Query about augmenting module from submodule in YANG 1.0



On 09/08/2017 16:13, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 05:01:09PM +0200, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>> I remember that in early stages of YANG there was some irrational 
>> fear of introducing too many namespaces, and submodules may be a 
>> consequence of it. As you write, submodules provide no benefits 
>> whatsoever in terms of modularity, but the overhead in terms of 
>> metadata, IANA registration etc. is pretty much the same as for 
>> modules.
> In case YANG 2.0 is ever done, I suggest someone files a proposal to 
> remove submodules if the cost/benefit ratio is at odds. There is 
> nothing wrong with removing stuff that has been found problematic.
I agree.

I've added https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_netmod-2Dwg_yang-2Dnext_issues_26&d=DwICAg&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=p8kyeK3u4ZYiaQ2ZPGqwkyXmQgBH6r5jpYiYWzhqJ48&m=l7c4IPL049A2bVVO14fyBMly211xU61xSHgPlAT7owI&s=-kR4fUtXArQy0RwWb32DpT1bP4X_cNqt2zJVoC0JiX8&e=

Rob

>
> The motivation for submodules was that organizations maintaining large 
> modules with multiple people can do so without having to mess around 
> with tools like m4 scripts to produce a single module from 'snippets'
> and to avoid integration surprises. But perhaps using m4 scripts and 
> decent version control systems (that can integrate and compile on
> checkin) is indeed cheaper than having submodules part of the YANG 
> language itself.
>
> /js
>

_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[e-mail]
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_netmod&d=DwICAg&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=p8kyeK3u4ZYiaQ2ZPGqwkyXmQgBH6r5jpYiYWzhqJ48&m=l7c4IPL049A2bVVO14fyBMly211xU61xSHgPlAT7owI&s=t7vGIH8ABuAm00e-bkSowD9eawModGq0N2OkjANtpYI&e=

_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[e-mail]
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_netmod&d=DwIFAw&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=p8kyeK3u4ZYiaQ2ZPGqwkyXmQgBH6r5jpYiYWzhqJ48&m=esi8GPSc1xVjTt9SKxqzNHRDXT2P1h01a-UebnST-Yo&s=PctKy3ij6W0TQs1NFp18SX8MQtYKeG9RxADh3cphcxU&e=