On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 03:05:48PM +0200, Simon Wunderlich wrote: > > I'm also wondering if label and gateway could have more meaningful > > names? TQ and host? Also, is TT the best? > > Hm, that is a good question. We also have the batman v with new metrics > coming up, I'm not sure how to handle these (maybe Antonio has some > idea?). It is not the TQ-value in the label after all, but some kind of > ETX-converted value (255/TQ if i remember correctly).
I think the ETX stuff comes from OLSR (but I don't know the details). I agree with Simon that we should find a generic name (e.g. metric ?) but I am not sure we can represent this value in a "algorithm-generic" fashion (and maybe we don't want to). > > Maybe we can change the names to: > * for neighbors: router->nexthop > * TT: "gateway" -> "client", "router" -> "node", maybe also change TT to > clients? TT is specific to the mechanism we use to announce clients. Moving to the generic "clients" could also be ok. > > > > I would like suggestions and comments from others with more experience > > with json. Is the basic structure O.K. Are there better names to use? > > > > There is also the issue of can we change the format of the current > > output. Is it considered an ABI? Should I add a third format string > > which can be passed with -f to produce true json, and leave the old > > format as is, for backward compatibility? > > As explained above, I'd like to keep the old format, so a third format > string should be used. It would be nice (if possible) to consider BATMAN V > at this point too to avoid adding many more formats in the future, but > generally I'm okay with adding new formats. > I have to think about what batman v may require. But I don't see snything special right now. Cheers, -- Antonio Quartulli
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
