On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 9:15 PM, Phil Shafer <[email protected]> wrote: > Martin T writes: >>Thanks! And this technique is useful in case cli process expects an >>element node(for example "interface-information") to have additional >>attribute nodes(for example "junos:style="terse"")? Does it provide >>any advantages over statically specifying the attribute node? > > No, there's really no advantage. I almost didn't bother including > it in the language; it's just there for completeness. "element > name()" gives identical functionality. > >>For >>example, here I rewrote two named templates and a match template of an >>op script example from "Automating Junos Administration" book: > > Can you give a page number? > >>template handle-logical-intf($family) { >> <logical-interface> { >> for-each (*[name() != "address-family"]) { >> copy-of .; >> } >> for-each (address-family[address-family-name=$family]) { >> copy-of .; >> } >> } >>} > > You might want: > > <logical-interface> { > copy-of @*; > for-each ... > > ... to copy the attributes off the current node. > > Using "copy-node" here gives you a means of avoiding hardcoding > the name, but that's pretty unimportant for code like this where > the functionality is so closely tied to the name. > > If the W3C had given copy-node a target xpath or an interesting > default content template (like the identity template), then it would > be more useful. But it doesn't. > > Thanks, > Phil
Phil, thanks for explaining this! The page number for this script, which I mentioned, is 391. Martin _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
