On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 9:24 AM, Sam Hague <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 9:08 AM, Tom Pantelis <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 8:56 AM, Sam Hague <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 8:54 AM, Sam Hague <[email protected]> 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? > >> >> > So define a yang model for the cfg options in infrautils in some other project with a DTCL that writes to the cfg file? That seems doable but what project (genius I guess)? And what happens if someone edits the file locally....
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
