Difference between revisions of "Sweetcomb/VOM"
From fd.io
m |
m |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | + | = VOM as a middleware = | |
These efforts have started with this [https://github.com/YohanPipereau/vomcomb Proof of Concept]. This demonstrates that it is possible to have the unmangled C symbols that sysrepo requires to dynamically load the shared library though developping the library in C++. | These efforts have started with this [https://github.com/YohanPipereau/vomcomb Proof of Concept]. This demonstrates that it is possible to have the unmangled C symbols that sysrepo requires to dynamically load the shared library though developping the library in C++. | ||
Revision as of 15:48, 25 June 2019
VOM as a middleware
These efforts have started with this Proof of Concept. This demonstrates that it is possible to have the unmangled C symbols that sysrepo requires to dynamically load the shared library though developping the library in C++.
Read this passage from RFC 8342. VOM has the same property as the intended datastore but it is not expressed in YANG.
Advantages/Inconvenients
Advantages of using VOM over scvpp:
- VOM offers a much more backward compatible API than VAPI.
- VOM is used in other projects like opflex-vpp (less bugs/more contributions)
- VOM::OM::replay can recommit configurations in case of failure of VPP
- VOM is part of VPP so changes of definition in "api" files will be updated in VOM too by VPP maintainers.
Inconvenients:
- VOM is very good to configure VPP but not to fetch information from it as it outputs dumps in a string format which needs to be parsed (problem of types, ...)
- VOM stores as: (key, list(objects)). The problem is that deleting a key will delete the entire list of objects so keys SHOULD BE uniquely choosen for each object (interface, route, etc...)
- Most VOM operations are not thread-safe
- Supporting new features in VOM is less straightforward than in scvpp because of the heavy usage of design patterns and inheritance.
