On Tue, 2006-04-18 at 17:43 -0700, David Lutterkort wrote:
I think there is a much harder question concerning the interplay of libvirt and the xm tools that this API discussion is somewhat sidestepping. Currently, the xm tools set a defacto standard for how you define inactive domains; libvirt will add a second mechanism with the proposed API. And since the libvirt XML descriptions are a much nicer way to describe a domain than the python scripts in /etc/xen, there's a big temptation to write libvirt based tools that use the XML description and replicate (some) of the xm functionality. That would give us three separate ways to define an inactive domain on a local system - madness ensues.
I would be very curious to hear how people see how the libvirt XML descriptions and xm or libvirt-based xm-like tools would interact.
David, I think you're capturing my main concern here... deviation from the norm of other tools we'll end up possibly shipping in the distro. I can understand how, from an RHN point of view, these calls can be pretty easily used, but in ways that would be very RHN-specific. If that's different from how the commandline tools we ship w/ the distro deal with things, that could really cause some customer confusion. --Bret