#opendaylight-meeting: MD-SAL interest call

Meeting summary

1. agenda bashing (colindixon, 16:07:43)
   1. https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/MD-SAL_Weekly_Call#Agenda the agenda in it’s normal place (colindixon, 16:08:09)
   
   
2. status updates (colindixon, 16:08:29)
   1. colindixon is hoping to get DataObject serialization to XML (and hopefully JSON) working this week as well as maybe deserialization (colindixon, 16:10:59)
   2. https://lists.opendaylight.org/pipermail/yangtools-dev/2014-July/000299.html some more info here (colindixon, 16:11:18)
   3. the commit() method on transactions is now named submit() and consolidates the way you can check how things succeeded or failed (colindixon, 16:12:29)
   
   
3. proposal to change behavior of generated builders (colindixon, 16:14:46)
   1. https://bugs.opendaylight.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1097 this is the enhancement bug in question (colindixon, 16:15:16)
   2. the core issue is that right now we allow for both a null list and an empty list as different things (colindixon, 16:17:24)
   3. the proposal is to stop allowing for lists to be null (colindixon, 16:18:35)
   4. this means that some code may currently be using that to differentiate between a not-present list and an empty list (colindixon, 16:20:12)
   5. dbainbri asks if there’s any code that this will affect (colindixon, 16:20:36)
   6. tony responds that the openflowplugin stopped producing the topology because it assumed that non-null lists were not empty (colindixon, 16:21:25)
   7. https://lists.opendaylight.org/pipermail/controller-dev/2014-July/005811.html this is the mailing list discussion (which is largely in favor of making null and empty list the same thing) (colindixon, 16:23:47)
   8. devinavery asks “Since we have no real objections, how are we going to go about merging this patch?” (colindixon, 16:29:34)
   9. colindixon says there are really two issues: (1) do we have to change the version of the generated code when the compiler changes, and (2) can we allow people to stay working on older versions of artifacts within reason? (colindixon, 16:31:15)
   10. tony says that w.r.t. (1) there’s a “v1” in the package name of generated code which corresponds to the binding interface version and we should probably increment that as part of this, although there’s some concern about how to do minor vs. major versioning there (colindixon, 16:32:02)
   11. edwarnicke says that w.r.t. (2) we’re almost there because we cut weekly releases of all projects every sunday (colindixon, 16:32:47)
   12. colindixon says that’s all well and good but we don’t have a mechanical way to allow people to roll back to the last weekly release across the board, the weekly releases border on useless (colindixon, 16:34:36)
   13. devinavery tries to push us back to the real discussion: there are two proposals: (i) push the change today and give people the rest of the week to fix it and (ii) give people the warning and then push the change on monday (colindixon, 16:41:21)
   14. a third proposal from dbainbri is to push it now, but with a version tick (colindixon, 16:41:41)
   15. a long discussion goes on (see IRC and/or recording) where it seems as though a version tick in the pom.xml file won’t solve the problem because you can end up with different bundle using different versions of the model which are now indistinguishable (colindixon, 16:49:21)
   16. as a consequence, the plan of record is to merge this change on Monday 7/28 after sending an e-mail to warn people (colindixon, 16:50:33)
   
   
4. changes in RESTCONF to support AAA (colindixon, 16:50:57)
   1. the currently the RESTCONF is hard-wired to the data broker (which doesn’t support AAA) (colindixon, 16:52:10)
   2. to provide AAA, we need to have a configurable wiring of RESTCONF onto a backing implementation that can support AAA (colindixon, 16:52:40)
   3. the proposal is to make RESTCONF something that the config subsystem can manage so this can be done (colindixon, 16:53:59)
   4. edwarnicke asks if there’s anything else that needs to be changed in RESTCONF to make sure that it passes appropriate authentication context as well (colindixon, 16:54:45)
   5. answer is no (colindixon, 16:54:48)

Action items

1. (none)

People present (lines said)

1. colindixon (35)
2. Madhu (18)
3. edwarnicke (15)
4. rovarga_ (12)
5. dbainbri (7)
6. odl_meetbot (3)
7. devinavery (2)
8. tbachman (1)