Re: [libvirt] [PATCH v2 13/17] docs: Add description for Storage Pool Capabilities
[...]
> +
> + <p>The following section decribes subelements of the
> + <code>poolOptions</code> and <code>volOptions</code>
subelements </p>:
> +
> + <dl>
> + <dt><code>defaultFormat</code></dt>
> + <dd>For the <code>poolOptions</code>, the
<code>type</code> attribute
> + describes the default format name used for the pool source. For the
> + <code>volOptions</code>, the <code>type</code>
attribute describes
> + the default volume name used for each volume.
> + </dd>
> + <dl>
> + <dt><code>enum</code></dt>
> + <dd>Each enum uses a name from the list below with any number of
> + <code>value</code> value subelements describing the valid
values.
> + <dl>
> + <dt><code>sourceFormatType</code></dt>
> + <dd>Lists all the possible <code>poolOptions</code>
source
> + pool format types.
> + </dd>
> + <dt><code>requiredSourceElements</code></dt>
> + <dd>Lists all the required <code>poolOptions</code>
source
> + subelements required for a valid source pool element.
> + </dd>
I know that this is now pushed and I just noticed that in the relevant
BZ where you posted the output of storage capabilities.
Why do we export <requiredSourceElements> in storage capabilities?
It doesn't make any sense to have it there. Management applications
using libvirt have to have some knowledge of libvirt and they have to
know what elements are required for each storage pool type in order to
create some sensible UI. In addition this is something that will most
likely never change and will not depend on what packages are installed
or how libvirt/qemu were compiled.
Because it was data that perhaps someone would find useful when
formulating XML for a storage pool. Each pool has different "required"
elements that are hidden in the bowels of storage_conf and I figured it
could be useful to have. Creating/defining a pool of a type that doesn't
have a required element would cause a failure.
IMHO we should drop this element from storage capabilities unless there
was some motivation to include this information.
IDC either way and am fine with dropping that element. The patches
themselves were posted since 2/12, pinged on twice, sorry if you missed
the details before I ended up pushing them. We have plenty of time
before the 5.2.0 release to make a decision at least!
John
Pavel
> + <dt><code>targetFormatType</code></dt>
> + <dd>Lists all the possible <code>volOptions</code>
target volume
> + format types.
> + </dd>
> + </dl>
> + </dd>
> + </dl>
> + </dl>
> + </body>
> +</html>
[..]