[Xorp-hackers] Counter and version

[Kristian Larsson]

On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 11:14:55AM -0700, Pavlin Radoslavov wrote:
> > I would like to know if the version of 
> > XORP is defined anywhere in the source 
> > code?
> 
> Yes. It is defined inside "config.h":
> 
> /* Version number of package */
> #define VERSION "1.1"
> 
> Also, file "VERSION" in the top-level XORP directory contains the
> string with the version.
> 
> > And is there some builtin clock in XORP?
> > I would need a "cron" like function so that
> > functions could be scheduled within the 
> > rtrmgr.
> 
> Class EventLoop (libxorp/eventloop.hh) contains a number of methods
> for creating one-time and periodic timers. In the callback for each
> timer you can specify the function or method to be called.
> 
> > BTW, I just saw a bug report regarding
> > set/create/edit (#172) and would once again 
> > like bring up the discussion. Is it really
> > necessary to have the create command?
> > IMHO create just complicates things as it's
> > functionality could as well be integrated
> > into the 'set' command.
> > Why not merge the two?
> 
> The purpose of "create" is to create parts of the configuration that
> don't exist (e.g., "create protocols bgp"), while the purpose of
> "set" it to assign values to (leaf) nodes that are suppose to
> contain values (e.g., "set protocols bgp local-as 1234").
> 
> Strictly speaking, it is possible to merge the functionality of
> "create" into the "set" command, but by doing so we are going to
> overload the "set" command itself. Then it could be argued that such
> overload complicates things by merging two different functionalities
> into a single command. Furthermore, for someone who is not familiar
> with the exact internal structure of the configuration tree a
> command like "set protocols bgp" could mean:
>     Set the value of node "protocols" to "bgp".
and what would the command "create protocols bgp"
mean to a person not familiar?
create bgp-process
or
create bgp instance 
would be more obvious but the next thing would be
a CLI parser which could take normal english;
"create a bgp process with AS29345 and setup a peer
to 194.36.235.1 and filter out everything but AS3"
This is an extreme, my point being that we have to
stop somewhere. You have to weigh efficiance
against ease of use. We could create a point&click
interface but not many routing technicians would
like that, I wouldn't at least ;)
Let's go with the idea Pavlin had, right? :)

> Opening the door for such (mis)interpretations could create more
> confusions rather than simplifying things.

/Kristian