Dan Smith wrote:
However, as Jay points out, I think that the indication should be typed per-platform as usual. So, should we type the job to match, since we'll need to persist the information for typing the indication as well?
I'm no Heidi, but it seems like we should be prefixing this. We prefix every other class we create, and if somebody doesn't want to deal with the Xen/KVM distinction they are welcome to subscribe to/filter on/whatever they want the CIM super class and get both, right? Sorry for my late jump into this discussion. I know, its already decided and only wanted to add my thought too. I also agree to prefixing the job with either Xen or KVM. This also means to update the mof files to
Jay Gagnon wrote: directly derive these two classes from CIM_ConcreteJob - or maybe better - rename Virt_MigrationJob to CIM_MigrationJob as placeholder for the upcoming migration profile and derive from CIM_MigrationJob.
As to where the prefix comes from, I think Kaitlin was on to something with the ref that comes in from migrate_do, although I think it can be even easier than she said. We don't actually need to attach the prefix to the migration_job structure; we're already attaching the classname, so all we need is a call to class_prefix_name and we've got a prefix.
Straightforward idea :). -- Regards Heidi Eckhart Software Engineer IBM Linux Technology Center - Open Hypervisor