3:09 p.m.
Am I the only one who finds the default behaviour of virsh list really
confusing and annoying? That is, I would like --all to be the default.
regards
john
3:44 p.m.
On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 09:09:49PM +0000, John Levon wrote:
Am I the only one who finds the default behaviour of virsh list really
confusing and annoying? That is, I would like --all to be the default.
Me too, but can we change it without breaking scripts or similar?
Rich.
--
Richard Jones, Emerging Technologies, Red Hat http://et.redhat.com/~rjones
virt-top is 'top' for virtual machines. Tiny program with many
powerful monitoring features, net stats, disk stats, logging, etc.
http://et.redhat.com/~rjones/virt-top
4:31 p.m.
On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 09:44:31PM +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> Am I the only one who finds the default behaviour of virsh list
really
> confusing and annoying? That is, I would like --all to be the default.
Me too, but can we change it without breaking scripts or similar?
Well, you've hit upon a good question here. Is virsh interactive, or
scriptable? Within Sun we generally attempt to clearly delineate these
things, precisely for reasons like the above.
'virsh list' would have grown a '-p' option, that printed a
machine-parsable output. That way, you can change the human output as
needed (for example, you can translate 'blocked' into $LANG).
Anyway, in this case, I think fixing up virsh list would be less pain
than leaving it. Anything that's trying to parse human-readable output
needs to be written carefully. For example, I don't think you'd have the
same objection to adding a field to 'vcpuinfo', but that's just as
likely to break scripts. I'm happy to hear contradictory opinions :)
In the longer term it would be good to make sure all new commands have
the above considerations when reviewing the visible CLI. Perhaps we can
go back and add -p options to things as appropriate too.
regards
john
12:19 a.m.
On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 10:31:56PM +0000, John Levon wrote:
On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 09:44:31PM +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > Am I the only one who finds the default behaviour of virsh list really
> > confusing and annoying? That is, I would like --all to be the default.
>
> Me too, but can we change it without breaking scripts or similar?
Well, you've hit upon a good question here. Is virsh interactive, or
scriptable? Within Sun we generally attempt to clearly delineate these
things, precisely for reasons like the above.
well to me clearly it was designed to be both, clearly it's intended to
be interactive since we link with libhistory if found, and also the command
parsing infrastructure was designed so that any command can also be used
as separated executions.
'virsh list' would have grown a '-p' option, that
printed a
machine-parsable output. That way, you can change the human output as
needed (for example, you can translate 'blocked' into $LANG).
Hum, I don't think there is anything preventing adding such an option
Anyway, in this case, I think fixing up virsh list would be less
pain
than leaving it. Anything that's trying to parse human-readable output
needs to be written carefully. For example, I don't think you'd have the
same objection to adding a field to 'vcpuinfo', but that's just as
likely to break scripts. I'm happy to hear contradictory opinions :)
Disagreed, adding a field at the end probably won't break most scripts
using sed/awk to extract data, but showing stopped machines will.
But we can add a 'virsh show' command doing a complete listing, then
it's just a matter of rerouting a few synapses, easier done than changing
running code ;-)
In the longer term it would be good to make sure all new commands
have
the above considerations when reviewing the visible CLI. Perhaps we can
go back and add -p options to things as appropriate too.
Definitely !
Daniel
--
Red Hat Virtualization group http://redhat.com/virtualization/
Daniel Veillard | virtualization library http://libvirt.org/
veillard(a)redhat.com | libxml GNOME XML XSLT toolkit http://xmlsoft.org/
http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/
6:35 a.m.
On Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 01:19:48AM -0500, Daniel Veillard wrote:
> Well, you've hit upon a good question here. Is virsh
interactive, or
> scriptable? Within Sun we generally attempt to clearly delineate these
> things, precisely for reasons like the above.
well to me clearly it was designed to be both, clearly it's intended to
This is almost always a bad idea IMHO.
Disagreed, adding a field at the end probably won't break most
scripts
using sed/awk to extract data, but showing stopped machines will.
But we can add a 'virsh show' command doing a complete listing, then
it's just a matter of rerouting a few synapses, easier done than changing
running code ;-)
virsh show doesn't help at all, as it's not any easier to remember than
'--all'. The whole problem is that it's non-obvious (and completely
different to xm) that the list doesn't include non-running domains.
regards,
john
6107
days inactive
6108
days old
4 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Daniel Veillard -
John Levon -
Richard W.M. Jones