On Fri, Apr 14, 2006 at 10:38:23AM -0400, Bret McMillan wrote:
I think we're confusing the notion of what a passive domain is with what config files happen to be sitting on / exposed to the dom0 machine. I could very easily look at having an rdbms store the info about the passive domain, hand that down to the dom0 via rpc, and directly call the createLinux call. To me, that's still a passive domain, even though it's configs haven't touched disk yet.
Yup, to me they are different level.
I guess I'm also struggling to understand why you'd toss this into xenstore... it just seems this is a higher level concept that needs to be tracked in too specific a way by management systems.
The reason it would be useful to save this in xenstore is to garantee the same vision between different application managing that node (for example a remote supervision tool and a local launcher used by the user). Otherwise just keeping this information in libvirt own memory would be just fine, I'm still unsure the need to synchronize is really there. Daniel -- Daniel Veillard | Red Hat http://redhat.com/ veillard@redhat.com | libxml GNOME XML XSLT toolkit http://xmlsoft.org/ http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/