Dan Smith wrote:
HE> patch 1: updated the mof files with the additional "Provider" HE> qualifier. The syntax is "<provider interface>:<module name>". For HE> our providers this means "cmpi:<filename>", HE> e.g. "cmpi:Virt_HostSystem"
Ugh.. Is this how OpenWBEM does registration? Yes, and even more. The provider_register script added an additional ":" between the <provider interface> and <module name>. I have fixed this and will resend with the complete patch set. Meaning, does this eliminate the need for the .registration files for OpenWBEM? Yes, but only for OpenWbem. We still need it for Pegasus and sfcb. I guess by now I should expect no fewer than X different ways of doing things, given X CIMOMs :)
I can only say - yes ;).
HE> patch 2: the registration for OpenWbem requires an entry point HE> <modulename>_Create_InstanceMI, which means that the filename and HE> the providername have to become the same. This is necessary to let HE> STD_InstanceMIStub correctly create the right CMPI entry points.
Seems reasonable, and possibly more organized.
Yes, but maybe this is also a limitation. The approach to allow a different module and provider name enables hosting multiple providers in one module. Its not that I would recommend writing such a provider module - really not, because this blows up the module and makes the code worse readable - but this possibility is then gone. For the libvirt-cim providers no problem, because we do not - and definitely will not ;) - make use of this possibility. I'm only saying this to describe a bit of the background for defining providername and modulename in the registration files.
HE> I have tested this setup with sfcb, Pegasus and OpenWbem and itI would rather call it HE> worked for all. If no one encounteres issues with this slighly HE> changed provider naming, I will create patches for all HE> providers. If someone has a hard requirement to name the provider HE> different compared to the file, please raise your hand ;). I look HE> forward an interesting discussion.
The easiest thing would be to go through and rename the providers to match the files, but I wonder if it isn't worth organizing things a bit further. Right now, we have some that are completely expanded (Virt_VirtualSystemManagementService.c) and others that are compressed (Virt_VSSD.c). Would it make sense to also rename the files (where appropriate) for more consistency?
Yes, consistency makes always sense :) ! If the others are ok with this change, I will expand the filenames of the compressed providers in a separate patch set. -- Regards Heidi Eckhart Software Engineer Linux Technology Center - Open Hypervisor heidieck@linux.vnet.ibm.com ************************************************** IBM Deutschland Entwicklung GmbH Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Martin Jetter Geschaeftsfuehrung: Herbert Kircher Sitz der Gesellschaft: Boeblingen Registergericht: Amtsgericht Stuttgart, HRB 243294