On Thu, Nov 09, 2006 at 11:32:41AM +0100, Karel Zak wrote:
On Fri, Nov 03, 2006 at 10:53:57AM -0500, Daniel Veillard wrote:
>
> Okay I can see how this would be useful, the questions I would have would be:
> - how generic is this, i.e. suppose a different hypervisor back-end
> would this still make sense. I guess yes, for example with an UML
> back-end we could check the process status and force a dump with a
> signal and move the core to the given file not trivial but same semantic
> would be doable.
Is there any policy what should be included in the library? I think
we will see many virtualization projects and an intersection between
all projects could be very small. From my point of view include to
the library something less generic is not big problem if we provide
API with a "non-implemented" (ENOSYS) return codes.
A very specific API is in my experience a wrong one, you end up
accumulating specific APIs instead of finding the right one which
expose a good semantic.
Please forget about "an integer specific return code is good
enough" we clearly aren't following that path, c.f.
http://libvirt.org/errors.html
raising unavailable errors is a good point though.
Daniel
--
Red Hat Virtualization group
http://redhat.com/virtualization/
Daniel Veillard | virtualization library
http://libvirt.org/
veillard(a)redhat.com | libxml GNOME XML XSLT toolkit
http://xmlsoft.org/
http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine
http://rpmfind.net/