Re: [netmod] derived-from-or-self leads to circular import

Don’t we have something similar with iana-if-types importing ietf-interfaces? Not circular, but definitely odd.

The base identity of interface-type is defined in ietf-interfaces, but the interface-types are defined in iana-if-type.yang. For anyone, including openconfig-interfaces, wanting to use any of the interface-types has to not only import iana-if-types but ietf-interfaces also.

As a general rule, would it not be better to have the base identity and the different types of that identity in the same file?

> On Aug 26, 2016, at 5:32 AM, Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com> wrote:
> 
> Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de <mailto:j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>> wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 12:43:04PM +0200, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
>>> Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 12:50:13PM +0000, Bogaert, Bart (Nokia - BE) wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> [...]
>>>> 
>>>>> In order to correctly compile (using confdc) we also need to import
>>>>> iana-entity for the identities defined in there.  However this is leading a
>>>>> circular dependency:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 1.       Iana-entity imports ietf-entity (to 'resolve'
>>>>> entity-physical-class)
>>>>> 
>>>>> 2.       Ietf-entity imports iana-entity (to obtain the indentities defined
>>>>> in there)
>>>>> 
>>>>> One way to solve this is to move the definition of entity-physical-class
>>>>> from ietf-entity to iana-entity which would resolve the fact that
>>>>> iana-entity requires an import of ietf-entity (ietf-entity needs to import
>>>>> iana-entity anyhow, so it can also pick the typedef from the same module
>>>>> too).
>>>> 
>>>> I think moving the definition of entity-physical-class into
>>>> iana-entity makes sense.
>>> 
>>> Ok.  It feels a bit backwards to me though, but I can see the value of
>>> having the iana module self-contained.
>>> 
>> 
>> Well, it may look backwards if people want to reuse the base identity
>> but none of the IANA assigned identities - but then it might be good
>> if people at least look at IANA assigned identities. Or are there other
>> reasons why you think this may be looking 'backwards'?
> 
> I makes ietf-entity dependent on iana-entity, since the base identity
> is defined in iana-entity.
> 
> But OTOH, even if we solved that, ietf-entity is dependent on
> iana-entity b/c of the value 'sensor'.
> 
> So in this case it is probably fine, but I'm not sure about the
> general idea.
> 
> 
> /martin
> 
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod>
Mahesh Jethanandani
mjethanandani@gmail.com