--On Monday, April 19, 2010 07:59:58 PM -0400 Jason Edgecombe <[email protected]> wrote:

Steve Simmons wrote:
On Apr 19, 2010, at 9:54 AM, Jeffrey Altman wrote:


On 4/19/2010 2:17 PM, Sanket Agarwal wrote:

I would wrap this blob with

<cell name="cellname">


I'm torn on this one. You can't run vos e on more than one cell at a
time, so don't see this as particularly useful in most circumstances.
However, if it *is* decided that it should be useful, I'd implement as
jaltman suggests - in particular, don't put the cell name inside the
volume-specific detail.

Similarly, data like server, server IP address and partition is largely
redundant when you're dumping many volumes. My xml-foo is amazingly
week, but something like

<cellname="cellname">
   <server=1>
       <uuid="xxxx">
       <ipv4list>
          <ipv4="192.168.1.1">
          <ipv4="10.0.0.1">
       </ipv4list>
       <partitions>
           <vicepa="/vicepa">
           <vicepb="/vicepb">
       </partitions>
   </server>
</cellname>
<volume>
   <name>root.cell</name>
   <id>536870915</id>
   <server=1>
   <partition="/vicepa">
   ...

would eliminate a helluva lot of redundancy. It might also be worthwhile
to do this down to a vice partition level, eg,

...
       <partitions>
           <partition>
              <partid="1">
              <vicepa="/vicepa">
           </partition>
           <partition>
              <partid=2>
              <vicepb="/vicepb">
           </partition>
       </partitions>
...
<volume>
   <name>root.cell</name>
   <id>536870915</id>
   <partid=1>
   ...


why <serv> and not <server>?


Ditto for partition vs part. Right now he's just using the tags as
reported by -format. I suspect that 'serv' vs 'server' and 'part' vs
'partition' was intentional on the original author's part; it does make
parsing of the original ascii output easier. I've used that distinction
myself for that purpose.

Steve_______________________________________________
OpenAFS-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel


would it be better to have <ip version="4" address="192.168.1.1" /> ?
Would that be better to anticipate ipv6?

No, I don't think so. IMHO it is better to think of IPv6 as a different protocol, rather than as a new version of an existing protocol. _______________________________________________
OpenAFS-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel

Reply via email to