[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: sub-tree filtering proposals
On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 10:23:46AM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote:
> I think the WG is still split on this point.
> I agree with Phil. We will have a lot of variance
> between minimal subset and full Xpath, and application
> writers will have difficulty managing this variance.
> If we had mandatory subtree plus optional full Xpath,
> there is less variance possible (just 2 choices: full
> subtree, full Xpath).
subtree filter + full XPATH = 2
XPATH subset + full XPATH = 2
> Or we could make both filtering mechanisms optional and
> let the market decide which ones are useful.
The market will decide anyway. But making both filtering schemes
optional just means the mandatory is no filtering (kind of introducing
a third option and I bet this is what applications end up doing -
sucking the whole thing and running xslt (which uses xpath) locally.
I tend to agree with Phil that agreeing on a single approach would
indeed by the best approach. I probably differ with him (not sure
though) that XPATH is the right way to go. Probably the solution
is indeed XPATH or no filtering at all.
/js
--
Juergen Schoenwaelder International University Bremen
<http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/> P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany
--
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/>