Ben Pfaff <b...@ovn.org> wrote on 06/06/2016 06:24:09 PM: > 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? >
No, your suggestion is more elegant and make the OVN patch simpler (and any other client code that will use conditional monitoring). I will take this approach on the next patch series. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
