[Interop-dev] Round 2: Network Device Config JSON Schema

[nemesis]

 On Tue, 11 Nov 2014 18:29:23 +0100, Henning Rogge <(spam-protected)> 
 wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 6:26 PM, nemesis <(spam-protected)> wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Nov 2014 18:22:30 +0100, Henning Rogge <(spam-protected)> 
>> wrote:
>>> maybe something like this:
>>>
>>> software: {
>>>     "os": "OpenWRT",
>>>     "release": "Barrier Breaker",
>>>     "version": "19477def7aa",
>>>     "version_type": "git",
>>> }
>>>
>>> other version_types might be "svn" or "numeric version" (decimal
>>> numbers, divided by ".").
>>
>> Yes, I like this more.
>>
>> What in case of a stable version downloaded from the official 
>> downloads?
>> Something like:
>>
>> software: {
>>     "os": "OpenWRT",
>>     "release": "Barrier Breaker",
>>     "version": "stable"
>> }
>
> A git/svn-commit is easy to look up... but there might be multiple
> "stable" releases of something like OpenWRT.
>
> instead of having a version_type, maybe "version" could have an
> optional namespace:
>
> "version": "git:<git-commit>"
> "version": "svn:<svn-version>"
> "version": "14.10"

 ok to recap:

 "software": {
     "os": "OpenWRT",
     "release": "Barrier Breaker",
     "version": "<vcs>:<id>|<stable_version_number>"  // pipe stands for 
 OR
 }

 Or we might even do:

 "os": {
     "name": "OpenWRT",
     "release": "Barrier Breaker",
     "version": "<vcs>:<id>|<stable_version_number>"  // pipe stands for 
 OR
 }

 What you guys think?

 It is useful to have a section named "software" at all? That could be 
 misleading, someone might think we want to list all the installed 
 software there, which is probably overkill. Maybe, just maybe, naming it 
 "os" is better. Let me know your thoughts.
 And thanks Henning for these fast responses.

 Federico