W dniu 2012-02-16 17:09, Freek Dijkstra pisze:
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.
I see you point and am not against. I'm only asking the questions which may appear on the user side. The best way is to answer someone from NSI. Roman
Freek