RE: same value operation attributes restriction

[Andy Bierman <abierman@cisco.com>]

At 07:14 AM 3/25/2004, Glenn Waters wrote:

>> I want to have some chance at multi-vendor interoperability. 
>> If we don't specify how the protocol allows a configuration 
>> database to be manipulated, then developers won't know what 
>> to code.  We have a set of operations (create, modify, merge, 
>> replace, delete) with well understood semantics.  I don't 
>> see how this is a CLR. 
>
>I agree that we need to specify the type of update. 
>
>I understand create and delete. 
>
>I don't understand the difference between replace, modify, and merge. 
>
>Is replace just a delete following by a create? If so why not eliminate it. 

Because it's one operation, not two.  
This is better because it can make some tasks easier to code
for the application developer. 

Modify will fail if the indicated data does not already exist.
This is useful for access control and to enforce stricter
programming practices than merge or replace.


>I think we need the equivalent of the SQL "update" which I guess is modify or merge but I don't understand the difference between those two. Also, to use existing industry terminology why not use the keyword "update".

Update is very generic. Counters get updated too.
I don't care very much about terminology, other than
a strong desire to avoid ratholing over it.


>Regards, /gww 

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/>