[Xorp-hackers] static xrl interface calls

Ben Greear greearb at candelatech.com
Mon Oct 19 10:29:38 PDT 2009


On 10/19/2009 09:57 AM, Li Zhao wrote:
> Thanks for the reply. I have coded my prototype protocol process. Two things I am still working on. In order to start dependended modules, it takes a long time. Sencond, it static routes is having a depending nodule, I dont want cli to delete xorp_static_routes. C++ xrl interface functions are working fine. My process can use them directly talking to static routes to update the routes.

I also have patches in my tree to start up modules quicker...(removes a 2-second sleep for each module, basically).

But, since this is a one-time cost, it shouldn't be too bad even w/out the patch?

Thanks,
Ben


>
> --- On Mon, 10/19/09, Bruce Simpson<bms at incunabulum.net>  wrote:
>
>> From: Bruce Simpson<bms at incunabulum.net>
>> Subject: Re: [Xorp-hackers] static xrl interface calls
>> To: "Li Zhao"<lizhaous2000 at yahoo.com>
>> Cc: xorp-hackers at icir.org
>> Date: Monday, October 19, 2009, 11:06 AM
>> Li Zhao wrote:
>>> Actually this is a generic question. For any new
>> config coming from xorpsh, how are these xrl client
>> functions sent to the target process from rtrmgr?
>>>
>>
>> The Router Manager uses the textual Finder protocol to make
>> indirect XRL method calls, as it parses the configuration
>> tree; it does not use the C++ bindings directly. Please see
>> the '*.xrls' files generated as part of the XRL stubs.
>>
>> thanks,
>> BMS
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xorp-hackers mailing list
> Xorp-hackers at icir.org
> http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/xorp-hackers


-- 
Ben Greear <greearb at candelatech.com>
Candela Technologies Inc  http://www.candelatech.com



More information about the Xorp-hackers mailing list