[Xorp-hackers] XORP configuration syntax consistency questions

[Atanu Ghosh]

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

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

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

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

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

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

My preference is "-".

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

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

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

Therefore "static-routes".

	  Atanu.