Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email protected]> writes: > On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 02:42:26PM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote: > >> Auto-deletion avoids forcing the client to make multiple edits, >> possibly leaving the datastore in a vulnerable state in between >> edits. > > A single edit can say 'delete this, add that' and then you validate > the result. This is simple to understand and matches the behaviour of > other systems people are familiar with. I do not buy your 'vulnerable > state in between argument'. If the client prefers to send multiple > edits, it better uses locks anyway. > > Right now, we seem to accept 'add that' and when validation of the > result fails, the server is expected to try 'delete that' in an > attempt to restore happiness. And this try 'delete that' can have > ripple effects. A validate operation that changes was is being > validated is scary. Its like pyang modifying foo.yang while parsing it > in an attempt to finish without parsing errors...
+1 And auto-deleting a case of a choice can have the same ripple effects if, for example, some "when" expression depends on the auto-deleted case. Lada > > /js > > -- > Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH > Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany > Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <http://www.jacobs-university.de/> -- Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
