On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 10:14:05AM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 09:43:34AM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > > Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 09:23:57AM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I think the use cases are rather obvious. I build a device and I > > > > > > like > > > > > > to rearrange existing models into a beautiful hierarchy (for some > > > > > > definition of beauty). > > > > > > > > > > This would be pretty complicated. Suppose I define my own beautiful > > > > > structure like this: > > > > > > > > > > container my-interfaces { > > > > > x:mount-point "if" { > > > > > x:mount-module "ietf-interfaces"; > > > > > } > > > > > } > > > > > container my-routing { > > > > > x:mount-point "rtr" { > > > > > x:mount-module "ietf-routing"; > > > > > } > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > Note that with the mount-point defined in my draft, each mount-point > > > > > becomes itw own "jailed" or "chrooted" tree. So references cannot > > > > > cross mount points. > > > > > > > > Could be the same here. > > > > > > > > > In this case, we have references between ietf-routing and > > > > > ietf-interfaces. How would they work? > > > > > > > > How do they work in your solution? If interfaces is jailed and routing > > > > is jailed, how does routing refer to the interfaces? > > > > > > My solution does not support "name module mount". It only supports > > > mouting of a "complete" set of modules (that are chrooted) - simply > > > because this is what we understand, have implemented, and have been > > > running for the last ~5 years. (The same goes for ODL, I believe). > > > > OK. I understand now that the whole set of modules on a mount point > > form one chroot environment. This was not clear to me yet but of > > course makes a lot of sense. So a static schema mount would have to > > define a set of modules and not just a single module to lead to the > > same chrooted behavior. > > Yes, but then you can't use it to define your own beautiful > structure.
I am not sure yet why this is the case. I would have to derive from the schemas the set of modules on a mount point. Yes, this would be static and not very dynamic, to add a module I would have to modify the schema. /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/> _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
