On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 03:22:43PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 03:49:05PM +0200, Matthias Bolte wrote:
2009/9/30 Daniel Veillard <veillard@redhat.com>:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=523639
feature request which makes sense to me, the simple patch attached seems to be sufficient, one can define and have the description back in the dump. Doesn't try to keep the location of the tag, it always get serialized after <uuid>. The only drawbacks I can think of are: - others XML formats may require the same, but honnestly it's trivial - machine generated description (for example if the history log of a domain gets stored there) could grow a lot and I wonder if we have a hard limit on the size when transmitting xml descriptions
Such a machine generated description would contradict the intention of Rubin Simons for this description entry. IMHO this description entry should be used for user-provided descriptions only. For any other purpose (like a history log) another entry should be added.
I agree that a '<description>' element should be exclusively for user supplied free-form text, not interpreted by applications. THe history log is the kind of idea that makes me think we should group it inside the top level <metadata> element.
Hum, I'm not sure I follow, you would like to create a metadata container at the top level and put <description> in it ? The problem is that I don't see what else we could move there. Daniel -- Daniel Veillard | libxml Gnome XML XSLT toolkit http://xmlsoft.org/ daniel@veillard.com | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/ http://veillard.com/ | virtualization library http://libvirt.org/