@sebastianm In VyConf it's going to be fairly easy (ok, possible at least) to implement different input and output formats, so chances are we can add | display json or | display yaml filters if there's demand for it.

To my mind... I'd rather keep a compatible syntax than a new one, even if there are benefits in terms of uniformity and parsing.

I say don't change it. I'd consider JSON/YAML though. (I am/was lylylyly on IRC).

Following a discussion with @dmbaturin in #vyos, I'm to work on this puppy.

I think we can just reference it directly.

In that case, BatString can just be added as a dependency, I guess, and we can call upon that function to sort as needed? Or would you still like a specific function for node sorting?

I've just done a quick test of the BatString.numeric_compare, looks perfect.

Depending on your feelings toward batteries, we could either use BatString's numeric_compare or just crib the implementation of that function (with all due credit given, of course).

I like this kind of problem.

Already implemented in Config_tree.

This has nothing to do with vyconf. Please move it out of the project, and to vyos 1.2.0

Protobuf schema has been written.

I'm a "NO" as a network engineer with a bunch of different brands already XORP style, or as close to JunOS as you can get it the best. Yet another (Similar) config style would be way too much frustration for most of my peers to even consider.

@dmbaturin, you can probably assign this one to me, if you feel comfortable doing so. I think I'm nearly done. I'd just like to put together some decent test cases before making a PR.

Well, my vote is "No", because if for small configs it's OK to have just intent-expressed syntax, if you have huge one, e.g. several pages - if you omit prefix before, say, 55, you will have to guess from context, if it is a vlan or preffix list entry, or VRRP group or whatever.

The suggestion from @rps (XORP style) seems to be the best way from my point of view:
https://phabricator.vyos.net/V3#51

With respect to the concerns I mentioned above, I've voted no.

@dmbaturin, Im with you on the aesthetics, and the readability. In the firewall ruleset example I still feel that the first is easier read than the second. Are we talking hundreds of lines to parse the former vs the latter? It seems like the later, across a whole config would at 10-20 lines if not more depending on the complexity. I for one am interested in seeing as much of the config on one screen, vs needlessly needing to scroll. As for your Q on pfSense, I've had to edit the xml configuration file by hand based on how pfSense sorts VLANs based on their add date vs numerical value.

@tmartinson Well, you should change your vote then (votes are not final here, for the better I guess).

I keep coming back to a sense that dramatic syntax changes are very damaging and disruptive to users. My fear is that we'll be spending years explaining to people that they're looking at old documentation or examples and that they don't have their curly braces in the right place. Or that we'll alienate a segment of our user base that is averse to change.

In the example above, I vote that the first example where name Foo and rule 10 are on the same line. It is much easier to read, and shortens up the output on the display. Sometimes with long configurations, it is easier when you can see more information on the same screen without scrolling.

@systo Just to make sure you are looking at it the right way, in the large it's actually less verbose than old syntax. The vif may not be the best example but firewall would make it apparent:

As an end user, I just keep coming back to the verbosity of the syntax, and the divergence from all the other established command syntax in this space. VyOS doesn't have the following to do it differently, as it adds another barrier to adoption. Its a subtle change, but it has a long reach, especially when luring former vyatta or EdgeOS converts that want to roll-their-own, vs buy MIPS hardware. While I understand it may save coding time in the end, I'm trying to avoid the verbosity that is pfsense, and awall/shorewall. I bet if you asked a room of non-vyos engineers, they would prefer the first syntax with a much higher percentage, but alas I digress.

Any change that imparts simplicity for the coding ahead is worthwhile. Time saved in the parser's reduced complexity can be spent in other ways.

@rps An serious issue with "interfaces { eth0" is that when there is no parent subtree of all ethernet interfaces specifically, we don't know which script to call when something in "eth0" changes. We'd have to have one big script that handles the whole "interfaces" subtree, which is very problematic when it comes to adding new interface types. If eth* interfaces are children of the "ethernet" node and tun* interfaces are children of the "tunnel" node, it's easy to attach ethernet script to the "ethernet" node and "tunnel" script to the "tunnel" node, if we want to add "openvpn" later, we won't have to modify that large script to accomodate it

I haven't voted yet because I haven't decided ... It's a big change.

@rps No, that's not the biggest challenge. Semicolon at the end of leaf nodes makes them unambiguous enough and easy to tell from tag nodes (this is especially bad with valueless nodes by the way, think "disable", colon wouldn't help there, but semicolon at the end does the job). The biggest challenge is that with "ethernet eth0" the parser must be fully stateful and capable of tracking which parent nodes it's already seen. "eth0", "eth1" etc. are really children of the same node called "ethernet", but in the config they appear separately. Consider this unusual but logically valid config:

@rps this distinction also seems to be easy in the original proposed solution by @dmbaturin because key value pairs are not followed by '{' and the rest is.

From a parsing perspective the only challenge tag nodes present is that you can't easily distinguish between "key value" and "key tag" without context. "key" and "key tag value" are fine. Using a ":" you get "key: value" vs "key tag" which removes the ambiguity.