Roman Łapacz wrote:
The question at hand is basically how to describe the following (with apologies with my poor ASCII art skills)
port A link X port B link Y port C O------------------>O------------------>O
Roman described this as:
Port A relation=next/connectTo port B Port B relation=next/connectTo port C
In the NML schema it is currently defined as:
link X relation=source port A relation=sink port B link Y relation=source port B relation=sink port C
Previous year I noticed some reluctance in describing both Ports and Links in examples, and asked if there was need to simplify as follows:
link X relation=serialcompound link Y
[...]
What I'm saying is that I would regret seeing all three options as "valid".
But if NSI wants to use paths/links as connected ports because of some reasons then I would be open to let them do it this way. Other users/applications may prefer using links because of some other reasons. By setting the limits should we prevent various users/applications from utilizing NML? Do we want to be so strict? Extensions (namespaces) and minimal set of rules would be an answer.
I do not see how the current source/sink syntax "prevent various users/applications from utilizing NML". I agree it is not the most compact syntax out there. But I think it makes it possible to describe the network topology that NSI uses. Again, that should be the restriction: can it describe the desired topology. Not: does it match the syntactical constructs we currently have. Freek