Re: [Libvirt-cim] [PATCH 1 of 2] Add calls into VSMigrationService to utilize new MigrationIndication provider
Jay Gagnon wrote:
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
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