Hi Dan,
On Tue, 22 May 2007 00:36:31 +0100 "Daniel P. Berrange" wrote:
> I think that would be a waste because we would miss an
opportunity to get
> new customers. I personally want to support the guest was created by non-libvirt
> app too.
That is almost correct. We do support management of guests that were created
by non-libvirt based applictions - if the config options they used are capable
of being expressed in terms of libvirt XML.
Now there are certainly a number of Xen configuration options that we don't
currently support in libvirt. We've perhaps got the 75% common case that
people use. I don't think we'll ever get 100% because there are some things
that are really very Xen specific, but that shouldn't stop us aiming to
improve our coverage. There's plenty of scope for more work to let us deal
with 95%+ of the Xen config options. IMHO, not hitting the remaining few %
is a worthwhile tradeoff given the huge benefits of having a config representation
which isn't tied to Xen, particularly if that remaining 5% is the type of
niche edge case config rarely used.
Thank you for replying and I understand you.
We will try to suggest about libvirt XML by other new thread like USB.
As always, I'd welcome suggestions & patches for representing
more of the Xen
config options in the generic XML format. The obvious big outstanding areas
we've currently got are, USB (we've already agreed on format, now just need
to implement it), serial/parallel devices (cf other thread suggesting a way
to represent it), sound devices (no suggestions yet, but several end-user
feature requests).
Okay. Thanks so much !
Saori.