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

[Andy Bierman <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 8:12 AM, Martin Bjorklund <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Ladislav Lhotka <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > On 26 Mar 2014, at 15:43, Andy Bierman <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 7:27 AM, Martin Bjorklund <[e-mail]>
> > > wrote:
> > > Andy Bierman <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > Do we agree that we don't want different encodings for values if there
> > > are attributes or not?  I.e., if my code works when no attributes are
> > > present, it should also work if there are attributes?
> >
> > I am not sure even your encoding satisfies this requirement. At least
> > your code has to be instructed to ignore the attribute stuff.
>
> In general, I think robust code would ignore unknown fields.
>
> > > Not if the normal encoding is painful to use.
> > > The use attributes is going to be rare.
> > > I want the expected "plain" encoding when there are no attributes.
> > > Code that generates JSON and does not care about attributes
> > > must not be rendered useless because the JSON is specially encoded
> > > in RESTCONF.  We want to leverage wide knowledge of JSON,
> > > not invent our own incompatible version of it.
> >
> > This is my preference, too.
>
>
This is not a preference. It is critical that plain JSON code
that knows how to deal with plain data structures does not break.

Well, of course.  But I don't think anyone has proposed something that
> is not valid json.
>
>

That is not the point.  A normal JSON tool is going to generate or expect
"foo":"bar" for a simple leaf, or "foo":[1, 2, 3]  for a simple array, for
example.

The encoding for the data nodes MUST be exactly
the same as the YANG-to-JSON draft now, if no attributes are used.

Only a client that knows about attributes will need to associate an
attribute
with its parent data node.  This must be easy to do.
Other clients should be able to ignore attributes.
A server must reject messages with unknown attributes.

I agree that no proposal is satisfactory for leaf or leaf-list nodes.


> > If so, do we have any other proposal?
> >
> > Leave it to proponents of every use case to figure out ad hoc how to
> > encode what's needed, or resort to XML.
>
> Which for RESTCONF would mean use XML, IMO.
>
> I still think a common definition would be better.
>
>
> /martin
>


Andy