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(a)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(a)veillard.com | Rpmfind RPM search engine
http://rpmfind.net/
http://veillard.com/ | virtualization library
http://libvirt.org/