On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 03:49:05PM +0200, Matthias Bolte wrote:
2009/9/30 Daniel Veillard <veillard(a)redhat.com>:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=523639
>
> feature request which makes sense to me, the simple patch attached
> seems to be sufficient, one can define and have the description back
> in the dump. Doesn't try to keep the location of the tag, it always
> get serialized after <uuid>.
> The only drawbacks I can think of are:
> - others XML formats may require the same, but honnestly it's trivial
> - machine generated description (for example if the history log of
> a domain gets stored there) could grow a lot and I wonder if we
> have a hard limit on the size when transmitting xml descriptions
Such a machine generated description would contradict the intention of
Rubin Simons for this description entry. IMHO this description entry
should be used for user-provided descriptions only. For any other
purpose (like a history log) another entry should be added.
I agree that a '<description>' element should be exclusively for
user supplied free-form text, not interpreted by applications.
THe history log is the kind of idea that makes me think we should
group it inside the top level <metadata> element.
Daniel
--
|: Red Hat, Engineering, London -o-
http://people.redhat.com/berrange/ :|
|:
http://libvirt.org -o-
http://virt-manager.org -o-
http://ovirt.org :|
|:
http://autobuild.org -o-
http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: GnuPG: 7D3B9505 -o- F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 :|