Re: Issue 13.3.1: the 'create' operator

[Andy Bierman <abierman@cisco.com>]

At 09:51 AM 2/21/2004, Phil Shafer wrote:
>Andy Bierman writes:
>>Some application developers have asked for this and
>>they think it's important.
>
>Then let's add an optional attribute that those particular
>developers can use.  In general, it's not necessary.  IMHO
>it's completely unrelated to transactionality.

I don't see why this should be optional.
I understand why #candidate, #writable-running, and
even #rollback need to be capabilities, but not this.
If this is optional, then developers can't rely on it.
Since this is the same implementation cost as 'replace',
why should replace be mandatory and this be optional?

I think this is related to transactions and several people
have pointed this out with examples.  Transaction error
handling and transaction performance are impacted by this
decision.


>Thanks,
> Phil

Andy


>--
>to unsubscribe send a message to netconf-request@ops.ietf.org with
>the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
>archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/netconf/> 


--
to unsubscribe send a message to netconf-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/netconf/>