On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 9:24 AM, Sam Hague <sha...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 9:08 AM, Tom Pantelis <tompante...@gmail.com>
>> 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
>> The clustered-app-config has advantages outlined in
>> 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
> 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
Discuss mailing list