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 :|