On 10/19/2009 09:57 AM, Li Zhao wrote: > Thanks for the reply. I have coded my prototype protocol process. Two things > I am still working on. In order to start dependended modules, it takes a long > time. Sencond, it static routes is having a depending nodule, I dont want cli > to delete xorp_static_routes. C++ xrl interface functions are working fine. > My process can use them directly talking to static routes to update the > routes.
I also have patches in my tree to start up modules quicker...(removes a 2-second sleep for each module, basically). But, since this is a one-time cost, it shouldn't be too bad even w/out the patch? Thanks, Ben > > --- On Mon, 10/19/09, Bruce Simpson<[email protected]> wrote: > >> From: Bruce Simpson<[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [Xorp-hackers] static xrl interface calls >> To: "Li Zhao"<[email protected]> >> Cc: [email protected] >> Date: Monday, October 19, 2009, 11:06 AM >> Li Zhao wrote: >>> Actually this is a generic question. For any new >> config coming from xorpsh, how are these xrl client >> functions sent to the target process from rtrmgr? >>> >> >> The Router Manager uses the textual Finder protocol to make >> indirect XRL method calls, as it parses the configuration >> tree; it does not use the C++ bindings directly. Please see >> the '*.xrls' files generated as part of the XRL stubs. >> >> thanks, >> BMS >> >> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Xorp-hackers mailing list > [email protected] > http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/xorp-hackers -- Ben Greear <[email protected]> Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com _______________________________________________ Xorp-hackers mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/xorp-hackers
