Re: [Libvir] [PATCH][RFC] libvirt ldoms support
John Levon wrote:
On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 04:19:47PM -0400, Cole Robinson wrote:
>> That's hardly fair. There's a big 'RFC' in the subject and Ryan
>> explicitly said they weren't ready. Eunice has been responding to all
>> your comments. Who's been talking of "final solutions"?
>>
> To quote Eunice:
>
>> 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.
> How can that be interpreted as anything but 'final'? An RFC is not
> about implementation details, it should be about the big picture.
> Already shipping a supported product based on an XML format that
> was not discussed upstream prior is about as final as it gets, IMO.
All Eunice is saying (pretty clearly IMO) is that the ldoms XML format
is used by an entire set of software already *unrelated to libvirt*.
That is Sun can't change their 'ldm' binary etc. to use libvirt's
format. I wouldn't be surprised if it pre-dates the libvirt project
altogether.
You could equally complain about Xen's .py files. It's the same
situation.
regards
john
Apologies in that case. I misunderstood what was being implied here.
I thought the xml format posted was being actively built by the
ldom libvirt patch, and not that it was a format which predated
the libvirt support. The reality is still a regrettable situation
(analogous to libvirt simply dumping a xen config file on a dumpxml
command), but far better than the former.
- Cole