Dan Smith wrote:
KR> +[Provider("cmpi::Virt_RedirectionService")] KR> +class Xen_RedirectionService : CIM_RedirectionService KR> +{ KR> +}; KR> + KR> +[Provider("cmpi::Virt_RedirectionService")] KR> +class KVM_RedirectionService : CIM_RedirectionService KR> +{ KR> +}; KR> + KR> +[Provider("cmpi::Virt_RedirectionService")] KR> +class LXC_RedirectionService : CIM_RedirectionService KR> +{ KR> +};
Should this be Xen_ConsoleRedirectionService? I don't know much about the KVM model so maybe this is silly, but it seems like maybe any other redirection service we implemented would be sufficiently distinct from this that it wouldn't make much sense to have them in the same provider. If you think that this isn't a concern, then I'll take your word for it :)
In CIM schema version 2.16, there's only RedirectionService and TextRedirectionService. And I don't think TextRedirectionService is what we're looking for. It's unfortunate, because it does make the service very generic. I saw a USB service was added in 2.18 - so maybe in the future, a more descriptive service will be added. -- Kaitlin Rupert IBM Linux Technology Center kaitlin@linux.vnet.ibm.com