On Fri, 2009-06-19 at 17:17 +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 06:13:37PM +0200, Daniel Veillard wrote:
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 10:50:10PM +0000, David Lutterkort wrote:
On Thu, 2009-06-18 at 20:48 +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 07:05:29PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
I think this is a really unpleasant format to deal with. IMHO there should not be nesting for <bridge>/<bond> tags. They should just refer to their slave device by name. So that last example would be better shown as a set of independant intefaces
Rationalizing the reason why I don't like this format. The relationship of NICs essentially forms a DAG. This format is attempting to define a tree from the POV of a single leaf node.
They do form a tree, with the exception of VLAN's: every other instance of an interface can be contained/used by at most one other interface. We need to treat VLAN's a little special, and allow them to reference external (to the XML) interfaces.
Trying to digest that long discussion maybe there is a solution:
- Dan thin a pure tree representation is not sufficient to express all relationships between interfaces - Dave would like to preserve the ability run the checks on a single XML instance
I think both can be accomodated but that requires a slight change of API, i.e. the XML will be able to define a set of interfaces. Basically we could do
Urgh, no I think that's even worse. I'd prefer either of the 2 options we've currently discussed over that.
Agreed .. that format wouldn't help much with static checking. David