misleading diagnostic

Daniel,
thanks for looking at that and noticing those problems.  it didn't really have anything
to do with reading or not reading the comments:  I just cut, pasted and edited another object,
probably rt, given the things you pointed out that I forgot to change!

re REC, I don't think we will be storing records for ac and tc.  (Dale?...)
If we don't, should we just not include the OBJ x REC line at all?

Am I right in thinking that the 'default' parsing in ripe81 just stops
at a blank, which lead to the problem cengiz observed?

 - r

--------

> From:    Daniel Karrenberg <Daniel.Karrenberg at ripe.net>
> To:      Rick Riolo <rlr at merit.edu>
> CC:      cengiz at isi.edu (Cengiz Alaettinoglu), rr-impl at ripe.net

> 
>   > Rick Riolo <rlr at merit.edu> writes:
>   > Here is the config fragment for this local object 
>   > (rv = rs-view = route-server-view):
> 
> Nice do you have the definition written up?
> 
> 
> After reading the comments in the config file you could have figured
> out the follwoing:
> 
>   > OBJ rv  ATSQ    rv de ai ao it io tc ac gd rm mb ch so
>   > OBJ rv  MAND    rv mb ch so
>   > OBJ rv  OPT     de ai ao it io tc ac gd rm
>   > OBJ rv  MULT    de ai ao it io rm mb ch
>   > OBJ rv  SORT    12
> should be unique
>   > OBJ rv  UNIQ    rt
> OBJ rv  UNIQ    rv
>   > OBJ rv  KEYS    rt
> OBJ rv  KEYS    rv
>   > OBJ rv  REC
> Maybe ?
> OBJ rv  REC tc ac
> 
> 
> 
>   > In general in ripe181, do you think there would be a problem with allowing 
>   > blanks
>   > in a key attribute?  if so, we can use some other character.
> 
> No. They are allowed if you don't do anything special.
> 
> I just did not have enough info to know.
> 
>   >  - r
>   > 
>   > --------
>   > 
>   > > From:    Daniel Karrenberg <Daniel.Karrenberg at ripe.net>
>   > > To:      cengiz at isi.edu (Cengiz Alaettinoglu)
  > > CC:      Rick Riolo <rlr at merit.edu>, rr-impl at ripe.net
>   > 
>   > > 
>   > >   > cengiz at ISI.EDU (Cengiz Alaettinoglu) writes:
>   > >   > 
>   > >   > Below is an update request and reply from the database.
>   > >   > It contains three objects:
>   > >   > 	*rv: rs900.ra.net 3
>   > >   > 	*rv: rs900.ra.net 30
>   > >   > 	*rv: rs900.ra.net 300
>   > >   > Reply is Update Ok for all three objects.
>   > >   > 
>   > >   > I checked the database it only contains the last one (the first two
>   > >   > are marked with XX). I guess blanks in the key field caused this.
>   > > 
>   > > 
>   > > I do not know what the "rv" object is. 
>   > > Can you send the config fragment for this?
>   > > 
>   > > My guess is that your the rv attribute is parsed only to the first blank.
>   > > Assuning that UNIQ is set to rv this means the updates concerned the same
>   > > object. In this case the DB software did the right thing in acknowledgin 
>   > all
>   > > updates as successful.
>   > > 
>   > >   > What is more interesting entry with "*rv: rs2.ra.net 3" is also
>   > >   > deleted as a result of this query.
>   > > 
>   > > Query or update?
>   > > 
>   > > 
>   > > Daniel



-------- Logged at  Fri Oct 21 14:07:49 MET 1994  ---------