Dan Smith wrote:
DL> That makes sense to me. I guess I'd lean towards leaving <init> DL> in the container block since a container isn't really starting a DL> new os image. Perhaps Dan Smith has some comments on this...
Oh I *always* have some comments... :)
From the above example, <init> would be the only member of <container>, right? That seems broken to me, unless there are other things planned to be in <container>.
Right. For a container, <init> would be the only member of <os> as well right? At the moment, I don't know of anything else that we will be adding to <container>.
In the context of a container, the value of <init> seems suited for the <os> block. From the view of a component that consumes the libvirt XML interface, I think I'd prefer avoiding more domain-level nodes, and would rather the relevant information be packed into existing areas (such as <os> and <devices>) instead of adding a new one (<containers>).
I guess my only hangup there is the case where the value of <init> specifies something that is not an init like application. In that case, at least to me, it seems less suited there. Of course, I don't know how likely or feasible such a use would be. I can definitely agree with your comments from a consumers perspective. I don't have a big problem with moving <init> to the <os> block. -- Best Regards, Dave Leskovec IBM Linux Technology Center Open Virtualization