Re: [Libvir] Re: [PATCH 1/2] virDomainMigrate implementation (Xen only, no remote, no qemu, no virsh)

John Levon wrote: >On Mon, Jul 16, 2007 at 10:47:59AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote: > > >>>If we need to express some choice of data channel, TCP, vs SSH, vs >>>SSL/TLS >>>then figure out a way to expose that in the API with an hypervisor >>>agnostic >>>way. Exposing raw QEMU migration URIs is *not* hypervisor agnostic. >>> >>Why? If nothing but QEMU support ssh:// then exposing an API to do SSH >>migration isn't really hypervisor agnostic. It's an API for QEMU. >> > >You're presuming things never change (and that new backends never get >added to libvirt!) > There's a big difference between taking two implements of SSH migration, finding the commonality, and building an abstraction verses just modeling the KVM ssh:// URI. The chances that a second implementation can be exposed nicely through the later is small. What I'd rather see is something that exposed the bits of both KVM and Xen and then a second "agnostic" interface. For instance, for KVM you may have: virDomainMigrateKVM(..., URI); For Xen you'd have: virDomainMigrateXen(..., hostname, port);

But then you'd also have: virDomainMigrate(dom, connPtr);