On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 9:08 AM, Tom Pantelis <tompante...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 8:56 AM, Sam Hague <sha...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 8:54 AM, Sam Hague <sha...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>> What is the preferred or suggested best practice for service level
>>> configuration? There are two methods we have been using and would like to
>>> know the pros and cons of each. Genius and NetVirt went with the blueprint
>>> xmls and openflowplugin and ovsdb went with the cfg's.
>>>
>> This seems confusing to end users to have two different methods of
>> configuration.
>>
>
> The clustered-app-config has advantages outlined in
> https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Using_Blueprint#Applic
> ation_configuration. However it does require the data store so in some
> cases may not want that dependency or can't, like infrautls.   Not sure why
> OFP and ovsdb opted for cfg files - perhaps that was before
> clustered-app-config?
>
Adding Anil for why ofp and ovsdb used cfg's as he drove that at the same
time. I thought it was because he thought it was easiest to implement but
that we would migrate to xml later.

That is a good point on the extra dependencies. Seems like xml is better if
you have mdsal and restconf, but you don't have those dependencies in
projects like infrautils. Would it make sense to have some kind of cfg
adapter/wrapper to five capabilities to the cfg users?

>
>
>>
>>> 1. blueprint xml
>>> - more odl/mdsal like since they are yang files
>>> - can be cluster aware - not sure on this
>>>
>>> 2. cfg's
>>> - simple text file rather than xml
>>> - have to explicitly add them to each odl node, could have conflicts
>>>
>>> Thanks, Sam
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Discuss mailing list
>> Discuss@lists.opendaylight.org
>> https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>
>>
>
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.opendaylight.org
https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Reply via email to