[Xorp-hackers] XORP configuration syntax consistency questions

[Pavlin Radoslavov]

All,

I'd like to ask for opinion regarding the particular syntax/style to
be used in the XORP template and configuration files:

1. The template/configuration syntax allows us to use either "-" or
   "_" (i.e., hyphen or underscore) within the name of a
   configuration/template node. E.g.: "as-number" or "as_number".
   Right now, we use both "-" and "_" in the rtrmgr templates (and
   the sample config files) when we have to separate the words in a
   long name. For consistency it will be nicer if we select a style
   that uses either "-" or "_".

   Therefore, if you have preference please speak-up now.

   [Please note that this question does not apply to the names
   within the XRLs that are in the rtrmgr template files: the XRL
   syntax mandates that we use "_" there.]

   It looks like that the configuration syntax of major
   router vendors is to use mostly "-".

   Personally, I have the preference for using "_" in general (e.g.,
   for consistency with the naming syntax in C/C++/Bash, etc).

2. Currently, the static routes protocol configuration section is
   named "static_routes", but within the RIB the protocol is known
   as "static". For consistency, and to avoid any confusion we
   should not use two different names.

   The major router vendors' naming scheme is to use "static" when
   it comes to configuring the static routes.

   However, the name "static" itself is overloaded, hence my
   personal preference is to use "static_routes" (or
   "static-routes", depending on the outcome of (1) above).


Comments?
Pavlin