On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 01:46:58PM -0500, Eunice Moon wrote:
Hi Daniel,
Yes, thanks for the feedback and we are agreeing on the code changes to be done. I also agree that there is a big issue regarding different XML formats.
I don't think the first option (to change the LDoms Manager XML format to be based on the libvirt XML format) is a feasible one since LDoms has been released public and some tools/applications are already based on the LDom Manager's XML interfaces.
So, it seems like we need to go for the second option (to provide a conversion layer between the LDoms Manager and libvirt XML formats) that would require some research and scoping.
If the LDoms code is to be merged into libvirt, IMHO, it has to be 100% compliant with the defined libvirt XML format. Any conversion from the existing non-standard format will have to be done by the LDoms tools before calling into libvirt APIs, or be a add-on patch that Sun adds to their Solaris build of libvirt for back-compat. This kind of issue is precisely why code should be submitted to upstream projects immediately during the initial development and not developed in a private fork without discussion. Dan -- |: Red Hat, Engineering, Boston -o- http://people.redhat.com/berrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org -o- http://ovirt.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: GnuPG: 7D3B9505 -o- F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 :|