No. A JSON object can have any number of members.
On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 11:06:21AM -0800, Anil Jangam wrote: > Thanks Ben for clarification. So it means one Monitor request can request > for only one Table monitoring, correct? > > On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 10:36 AM, Ben Pfaff <b...@ovn.org> wrote: > > > <monitor-requests> is a JSON object. A JSON object maps from keys to > > values, so we only need one. > > > > Your specification for <monitor-requests> is wrong because it says that > > it is a JSON array. It is not. > > > > On Wed, Mar 07, 2018 at 09:32:06PM -0800, Anil Jangam wrote: > > > Hello Ben, > > > > > > I have one more observation. I request you to please read it carefully. > > If > > > we go by the current monitor method definition, there can be only > > > <monitor-requests> > > > in one monitor RPC method. If it is expected to have only one > > > <monitor-requests> > > > i.e. one table and an array of <monitor-request>, then the current > > > specification is good. > > > > > > o "method": "monitor" > > > > > > o "params": [<db-name>, <json-value>, <monitor-requests>] > > > > > > o "id": <nonnull-json-value> > > > > > > > > > However, if it is possible to specify multiple table monitoring in one > > RPC > > > method, IMHO the above syntax would change as below. > > > > > > > > > o "method": "monitor" > > > > > > o "params": [<db-name>, <json-value>, <monitor-requests>*] > > > > > > o "id": <nonnull-json-value> > > > > > > > > > For completeness, I am also specifying the syntax for <monitor-requests>. > > > > > > monitor-requests : [<table-name>, <monitor-request>*] > > > > > > > > > Let me know if this would be correct or if you think otherwise. > > > > > > /anil. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 10:27 AM, Ben Pfaff <b...@ovn.org> wrote: > > > > > > > Ah, OK, you're saying that there's a missing [] around the > > > > <monitor-request>. This goes back to a change that we made to the > > > > ovsdb-server protocol a long time ago to allow multiple > > > > <monitor-request> objects instead of just a single one. ovsdb-server > > > > still supports this form. You can see this documented in > > > > Documentation/ref/ovsdb-server.7.rst: > > > > > > > > For backward compatibility, ``ovsdb-server`` currently permits a > > single > > > > <monitor-request> to be used instead of an array; it is treated as > > a > > > > single-element array. Future versions of ``ovsdb-server`` might > > > > remove this > > > > compatibility feature. > > > > > > > > I guess we should change ovsdb-idl.c to use an array now. Oops. > > > > > > > > Anyway, that's easy enough, so I sent a patch: > > > > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/882710/ > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 08:38:34PM -0800, Anil Jangam wrote: > > > > > Hello Ben, > > > > > > > > > > The <monitor-requests> object maps the name of the table to be > > monitored > > > > > > > > > > to an array of <monitor-request> objects. Each <monitor-request> is > > an > > > > > > > > > > object with the following members: > > > > > > > > > > "columns": [<column>*] optional > > > > > > > > > > "select": <monitor-select> optional > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As the <monitor-requests> maps the table name to be monitored to an > > array > > > > > of <monitor-request>, my interpretation of it is as "Table Name <--> > > > > Array > > > > > of <monitor-request>" > > > > > > > > > > I am giving an example message is given below. > > > > > > > > > > { > > > > > "id": "c5c09c07-11c1-449b-8f04-016fefe15844", > > > > > "method": "monitor", > > > > > "params": [ > > > > > "hardware_vtep", > > > > > "91c9eed4-00bb-48e3-b2d9-51e0364bbdc2", > > > > > { > > > > > "Physical_Locator": [ > > > > > { > > > > > "columns": [ > > > > > "dst_ip", > > > > > "encapsulation_type", > > > > > "_uuid" > > > > > ], > > > > > "select": { > > > > > "initial": true, > > > > > "insert": true, > > > > > "delete": true, > > > > > "modify": true > > > > > } > > > > > }, > > > > > { > > > > > "columns": [ > > > > > "_uuid", > > > > > "locators" > > > > > ], > > > > > "select": { > > > > > "initial": true, > > > > > "insert": true, > > > > > "delete": true, > > > > > "modify": true > > > > > } > > > > > } > > > > > ] > > > > > } > > > > > ] > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > /anil. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 11:30 AM, Ben Pfaff <b...@ovn.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 05, 2018 at 10:03:13PM -0800, Anil Jangam wrote: > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The RFC7047 states below about the Monitor request. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The request object has the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > following members: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > o "method": "monitor" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > o "params": [<db-name>, <json-value>, <monitor-requests>] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > o "id": <nonnull-json-value> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The <json-value> parameter is used to match subsequent update > > > > > > > > > > > > > > notifications (see below) to this request. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The <monitor-requests> object maps the name of the table to be > > > > monitored > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to an array of <monitor-request> objects. Each <monitor-request> > > is > > > > an > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object with the following members: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "columns": [<column>*] optional > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "select": <monitor-select> optional > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The columns, if present, define the columns within the table to > > be > > > > > > monitored. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <monitor-select> is an object with the following members: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "initial": <boolean> optional > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "insert": <boolean> optional > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "delete": <boolean> optional > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "modify": <boolean> optional > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The contents of this object specify how the columns or table are > > to > > > > be > > > > > > > monitored, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as explained in more detail below. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, when I look at some of the legitimate samples of the > > Monitor > > > > > > > requests, they are encoded as below. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > { > > > > > > > "id": "c5c09c07-11c1-449b-8f04-016fefe15844", > > > > > > > "method": "monitor", > > > > > > > "params": [ > > > > > > > "hardware_vtep", > > > > > > > "91c9eed4-00bb-48e3-b2d9-51e0364bbdc2", > > > > > > > { > > > > > > > "Physical_Locator": { > > > > > > > "columns": [ > > > > > > > "dst_ip", > > > > > > > "encapsulation_type", > > > > > > > "_uuid" > > > > > > > ], > > > > > > > "select": { > > > > > > > "initial": true, > > > > > > > "insert": true, > > > > > > > "delete": true, > > > > > > > "modify": true > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > }, > > > > > > > "Physical_Locator_Set": { > > > > > > > "columns": [ > > > > > > > "_uuid", > > > > > > > "locators" > > > > > > > ], > > > > > > > "select": { > > > > > > > "initial": true, > > > > > > > "insert": true, > > > > > > > "delete": true, > > > > > > > "modify": true > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > ] > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If we go by the RFC encoding rules, "params" contains the > > > > > > > <monitor-requests>, which maps the "Table name" to an array of > > > > > > > <Monitor-request> object. So IMHO, the table names comes only > > once > > > > in the > > > > > > > message. Correct? > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes. That's what I see above. The table names are > > Physical_Locator > > > > and > > > > > > Physical_Locator_Set, and each of them is mentioned once. > > > > > > In the <monitor-requests> object "Physical_Locator" is mapped to: > > > > > > > > > > > > { > > > > > > "columns": [ > > > > > > "dst_ip", > > > > > > "encapsulation_type", > > > > > > "_uuid" > > > > > > ], > > > > > > "select": { > > > > > > "initial": true, > > > > > > "insert": true, > > > > > > "delete": true, > > > > > > "modify": true > > > > > > } > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > and similarly for "Physical_Locator_Set". > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also, it is explicitly mentioned that (as below) and it does NOT > > > > contain > > > > > > > the "Table name" in it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Each <monitor-request> is an > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object with the following members: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "columns": [<column>*] optional > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "select": <monitor-select> optional > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, in the message payload that I have, shows the tuple, > > which > > > > > > > contains "Table : Columns : Select". This list of > > <monitor-request> > > > > > > constitute > > > > > > > the <monitor-requests> as per the RFC definition. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I see this as the discrepancy between the RFC definition and how > > the > > > > > > > message is actually sent by the controller. > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't understand what discrepancy you see. Can you show an > > example, > > > > > > for example by providing how you think the above example should > > > > actually > > > > > > be encoded? > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list disc...@openvswitch.org https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-discuss
