On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 08:46:13AM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
On 10/13/2015 06:20 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>> There's of course the obvious solution - not change anything and have
>> mgmt apps calling two separate APIs - like they oughtta be doing today.
>
> That's the right solution IMHO
>
>> What's your view?
>
> I see no compelling reason to add anything to the API or implementation.
> We provide enough functionality already to deal with this scenario. Trying
> to overload multiple operations into a single API "for convenience" ends
> up not being convenient at all, due to the error reporting scenarios you
> mention. I don't see any real burden on applications to call these
> existing APIs when they wish to.
I still think virsh can be taught the convenience method. I agree that
the lowlevel libvirt.so entry points don't need convenience, but we have
already established that virsh is perfectly capable of doing 2 or more
low-level API calls under a single command, in part because virsh has
decent error reporting about which step of the sequence fails.
Oh sure, virsh could do this. I was only considering the API.
Regards,
Daniel
--
|:
http://berrange.com -o-
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|:
http://libvirt.org -o-
http://virt-manager.org :|
|:
http://autobuild.org -o-
http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|:
http://entangle-photo.org -o-
http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|