Re: [B.A.T.M.A.N.] Alfred batadv-vis json conformance

Antonio Quartulli
2013-10-02T16:01:06Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1852 bytes --]

On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 03:05:48PM +0200, Simon Wunderlich wrote:
> > I'm also wondering if label and gateway could have more meaningful
> > names? TQ and host? Also, is TT the best?
>
> Hm, that is a good question. We also have the batman v with new metrics
> coming up, I'm not sure how to handle these (maybe Antonio has some
> idea?). It is not the TQ-value in the label after all, but some kind of
> ETX-converted value (255/TQ if i remember correctly).

I think the ETX stuff comes from OLSR (but I don't know the details).

I agree with Simon that we should find a generic name (e.g. metric ?) but I am
not sure we can represent this value in a "algorithm-generic" fashion (and maybe
we don't want to).

>
> Maybe we can change the names to:
> * for neighbors: router->nexthop
> * TT: "gateway" -> "client", "router" -> "node", maybe also change TT to clients?

TT is specific to the mechanism we use to announce clients.
Moving to the generic "clients" could also be ok.

> >
> > I would like suggestions and comments from others with more experience
> > with json. Is the basic structure O.K. Are there better names to use?
> >
> > There is also the issue of can we change the format of the current
> > output. Is it considered an ABI? Should I add a third format string
> > which can be passed with -f to produce true json, and leave the old
> > format as is, for backward compatibility?
>
> As explained above, I'd like to keep the old format, so a third format
> string should be used. It would be nice (if possible) to consider BATMAN V
> at this point too to avoid adding many more formats in the future, but
> generally I'm okay with adding new formats.
>

I have to think about what batman v may require. But I don't see snything
special right now.

Cheers,

--
Antonio Quartulli

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]