On 11/15/17 05:38, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > On Wed, 2017-11-15 at 05:27 -0500, Joe Clarke wrote: >> On 11/15/17 05:06, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: >>>> I suppose my gut reaction to Lou's question as to whether a server >>>> should support multiple versions was, "no." A client may have multiple >>>> versions loaded to support servers that support different versions. I >>>> may be convinced otherwise, but I feel that this will become untenable >>>> over time (even if module names change). >>> >>> There are use cases for modules that are imported (i.e. not >>> implemented): it could be that a module author wants to use some >>> definitions from an old version of an imported module while, at the same >>> time, other definitions from a new version. >>> >>> The semver-aware "import" statement should be able to deal with this. >> >> I think it could be, but I also think importing from different versions >> of the same module feels messy. How would this work with different >> module names today? Just use different prefixes? Are there defined use >> cases for this in the wild today? > > Let's say a new version of a module adds new enums to two different > enumeration > types, but an implementor (for some reason) is only able to update one of them > in the back-end and not the other.
I read implementor to be "vendor" here. And if a vendor cannot implement one of the enums, would they not just add a deviation? I don't see why they'd have to keep the old module around for this. Joe _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
