What we side with regard to the atomicity of collisions was that the
model needed to specify that. So if the model writer concludes that the
leaves A and B in your example are so closely coupled that bad things
will happen if different people write different parts, then they can say
the container is the granularity. Usually, I would expect the leaf to
be the granularity. We do not expect the I2RS agent (or the underlying
system) to guess the granularity.
Yours,
Joel
On 11/2/15 9:02 PM, Andy Bierman wrote:
On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 5:28 PM, Russ White <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> For example, if state gets over-ridden, but preserved, then even
though it
is
> not doing any good, the client which installed the state must still
monitor for
> any related dependenecies so as to not leave incorrect pending state.
> Which also means that a client has to be able to remove state it has
created,
> even though that state has been over-ridden. And probably has to
be able
> to create state which won't take effect. Which in turns means
that you
need
> to be able to read your own effects and the current state separately.
I would think this should be a client specific implementation
detail... I
don't see why, from a protocol level, it should be disallowed, when the
changes involved would be minor (or at least it seems to me?).
I am not sure I understand edit collision processing.
The proposals is that the ephemeral datastore contains data
from 1 or more clients. The data from different clients is non-overlapping
(for some definition of that).
I will avoid running config + ephemeral leaf-override for now.
Assume the data model is entirely for I2RS:
container foo {
leaf A { type int32; }
leaf B { type int32; }
}
1) client-worst set /foo/A to 42 { "foo": { "A":42 } }
2) client-best sets /foo/B to 7 { "foo": { "B":7 } }
3) Is client-best going to knock out data owned by client-worst?
what happens to /foo/A?
Q1) Is this a collision because /foo is written by both clients?
if not, does client-best own /foo and /foo/A, and client-worst owns
/foo/B?
If yes, then step (2) is effectively a PUT, no matter what method is
really used
Q2) what notifications are sent to client-worst, if any (depending on
answer to Q1)
(client-worst either lost ownership of /foo or /foo and /foo/A)
Consider that A and B can be arbitrary subtrees, not just leafs.
How are the edit collision boundaries specified?
Simple YANG overlap will cause lots of deletions.
More granular/complex boundary specification would help
avoid such deletions where the 2 clients could actually co-exist.
:-)
Russ
Andy
_______________________________________________
i2rs mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
_______________________________________________
i2rs mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
