On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 9:35 AM Edward Haas <edwa...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 9:25 AM Gris Ge <f...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Mar 04, 2019 at 05:58:01PM +0100, Thomas Haller wrote:
>> > On Mon, 2019-03-04 at 22:11 +0800, Gris Ge wrote:
>> > > * Top tree is 'routes', and subtree is 'ipv4' and 'ipv6'.
>> > > Even the IPv4 and IPv6 route entry are mostly identical, but we
>> > > need
>> > > schema to differentiate the 'destination' address type in a simple
>> > > way.
>> >
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > {
>> > routes: {
>> > [0] = {
>> > addr-family: ipv4,
>> > ...
>> > },
>> > ...
>> > },
>> > }
>> >
>> > I think the answer is "yes".
>> I agree. But Edward has some concern about how to enforce the
>> 'destination' format if we unified the route, which I think we can lose
>> the schema on the destination to string let runtime do the syntax check.
>>
>
> The issue is with the nmstate clients, not nmstate itself.
> The clients will have to write their own code to make sure they are passing
> the correct thing. schema to code generator would have done that for them
> automatically.
>
As far as I know, existing schema standards do not support changing the
type or format of one
entry based on a different entry value.
> > "protocol" possibly should still be renamed to "source". Or "origin"?
>> The origin is better. Source might confuse with source routing.
>> >
>> > best,
>> > Thomas
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Gris Ge
>>
>
_______________________________________________
networkmanager-list mailing list
networkmanager-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
