On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 01:05:19PM +0300, Liran Schour wrote: > Ben Pfaff <b...@ovn.org> wrote on 02/06/2016 08:38:10 PM: > > Looking at how all this fits together, it seems a little awkward to have > > condition objects separate from the IDL and to have them require a > > separate "update" call. It would be easier to use and probably more > > straightforward if it wasn't necessary to have (and track) these > > separate objects, and then conditionally update them. > > I want to clarify your suggestion before changing the code. > IDL itself will keep and track condition on each table. The client code > will only specify the changes of condition by adding and removing clauses > without keeping and tracking the table's condition. > IDL itself , on ovsdb_idl_run(), will send monitor_cond_update > (monitor_cond_change) message to the server if conditions were changed by > the client. > Is that what you are pointing to?
Yes, that's what I'm suggesting. You have thought about the details here more than me, so do you see important advantages to the way that you did this? _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
