Re: [netmod] YANG library structure

[Martin Bjorklund <[e-mail]>]

Juergen Schoenwaelder <[e-mail]> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 07:08:32AM -0500, Lou Berger wrote:
> > On 12/08/2017 06:15 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> > >  
> > >> In talking to some others on this topic, they suggested using a library per
> > >> datastore. I haven't look into this enough to know if that is a good or bad
> > >> idea, but it seems functionally equivalent to your first option but realized
> > >> in a different way. Just something to add to the mix.
> > > If people want to put additional options on the table, they should
> > > work out the details and write down a tree diagram and send the result
> > > to the list.
> > 
> > I guess we have a different philosophical approach here.  I'd prefer to
> > hear about fresh ideas, even if half baked or asked as a "stupid
> > question". Sometimes, if not dismissed out of hand, these lead to
> > something that is a better result than others that have been immersed in
> > the issue have thought of.
> >
> 
> The devil is usally in the details and 'using a library per datastore'
> is for my taste a bit too little to understand what is actually being
> proposed. I am not dismissing proposals, but I like to be able to
> understand what is being proposed. And for that I need a proposal that
> is a bit more than 'using a library per datastore'.

I agree.  In this case, I can't understand how it would work at all.
The library is config false, so a client can never get it via
get-config from <running>.  Maybe the proposal is a new operation
<get-yang-library> with the datastore as a parameter?  Or maybe the
idea is to somehow return meta data together with <get-config>?  I can
guess, and dismiss the proposal based on my guesses ;-)  Or someone
can write up a concrete proposal.


/martin