On 15 Jun 2015, at 21:01, Alexander Chemeris
<alexander.chemeris(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Good Morning Alexander,
I agree that transactional functionality would be nice
and I had been thinking about this. But it's a big change which should be well planned
and requires considerable effort to go through all commands and split configuration from
application. One issue is that we'll need to create "shadow" registers for
the non applied settings. E.g. in case of power control, the setting was actually applied
at the BSC part of the control (it was using the setting variable directly), but was not
propagated to the BTS party, which was really confusing from a user perspective.
In short - I agree that such feature would be nice, but I don't think this is a
showstopper for this patch, because it just makes things more consistent.
we will not be able to find an agreement here. The current behavior is not consistent (we
have attributes that apply immediately, after a BTS restart or even only after the restart
of
the system). Moving one VTY command from one class to another doesn’t improve the
consistency in any way. The same inconsistency remains in the system, we face the same
issue in documenting the inconsistencies.
So when/how do we want to apply changes? Should all changes be abpplied after an
“apply” command? How is it done by other vendors that offer a VTY like interface?
holger