Re: [Model] 4.5.6 <alias> Element

Actually now that i think about it, the text needs to be talking about
setting/getting the properties of the alias (which changes the target)
vs setting/getting the value of the alias. The former (which i referred
to as #i) is achieved via S/GET-PROPERTY and the later via S/GET (as in
#ii example).

Thoughts?

cheers,
jamal

On Tue, 2007-23-01 at 17:59 -0500, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> Set and Get via Alias are supported so as to allow one to set / get 
> the entire structure.
> Also, while the LFB structures defines the primary location of the 
> information, it is entirely up to the CE (or the programmer of the 
> CE) what path is used to set / get information.  I can easily imagine 
> implementation techniques where it simplifies life to access the 
> values through the alias.  (The simplest example is an LFB instance 
> browser with set/get capability.)
> 
> Mostly, I didn't think it was the model's job to control how the 
> values were manipulated.  And there is no conflict, given that all 
> the LFBs of an FE are under the control of a single CE.  Yes, I can 
> imagine questions arising if we support split control.  But so many 
> other issues arise that I see no point in planning for that.
> 
> Yours,
> Joel
> 
> At 11:05 AM 1/23/2007, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
> 
> >- I think this section would benefit from an example right at this
> >point. It also makes it consistent since the other 4.5.x sections mostly
> >have  examples.
> >
> >- The text may be a little confusing.
> >Lets say i have an LFBx which uses an alias ifindex. Say the real
> >location (target) is in some portLFB:instanceI:a.b.c.d and the value at
> >that location is 0x12. Then:
> >On LFBx (given i have write permission)
> >i) I can change the target to be new path say portLFB:instanceJ:a.b.c.e
> >ii)I can SET the value of a.b.c.e (if i have write permissions)
> >
> >It almost seems to me you should never have the need for #ii (we have
> >been using aliases and have had no need to so far) and that you should
> >occasionally need to to do #i (for reasons i wont go into we  do it more
> >than occasionally).
> >
> >The text talks about #ii but not about #i.
> >
> >cheers,
> >jamal