AW: AW: [Xorp-hackers] Config Var <-> Config mode

[Patrick Preuss]

Hello Pavlin,

> A number of issues have been brought in this thread, so here is a
> summary (per issue) with a reply:
>
> * The configuration should support ";" at the end of each line
>   statement (as Juniper does).
>

It would nice for the same look and feel.

>
> * Accept configuration statements like "varname value" in
>   addition of "varname: value" so it is more Juniper-like.

>   We will consider this and we will look more carefully into it.

Nice, because currently supported is the entering of: varname value<CR>
The resulting config shows varname: value

> * "Currently you cannot cut and past the config"

>   True, because we never claimed we are Juniper-compatible.
>   Furthermore, note that even if we support the "varname value"
>   syntax, you still won't be able to use the Juniper configuration
>   as-is because of other differences like the structure of the
>   configuration tree.

Seams a little misunderstanding, yes cut/past form a juniper would be nice 
As well but I thought of cut/past from another xorp system where you have
all ready configured something like pollcy statements.


> * A statement that contains only the name of a bool variable should
>   imply that its value is true. The deletion of that variable should
>   imply its value becomes false.

>   We have been thinking about something like this within the context
>   of the "disable" bool flag. Right now you have to specify
>   "disable: true" to disable an entity. To do it as Juniper does it
>   we could need only a statement like "disable".
>

> * The subject of the "create" and   "set" has been brought in the
>   past, and I think there is an open bugzilla entry about this.
>   There are arguments for keeping them separately, but lets not have
>   the discussion again at this time. We will come back to it at
>   some later stage.

> * Specifying a list of prefixes within a single variable is not
>   practical:
> network4-list {
>     elements: "1.0.0.0/24,1.0.1.0/24"
> }
>   and similar to Juniper we should use instead:
> prefix-list test {
>     1.0.0.0/24;
>     2.0.0.0/24;
> }
>
>   We agree with this and we need to do something about it.

Regards 
	patrick