On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 15:49:01 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 26/10/2012 15:38, Jiri Denemark ha scritto:
> <host name='example.org' port='6000'
transport='tcp'/> or
> <host socket='/path/to/sock' transport='unix'/>
>
> However, I don't like this too much either. What if we add a general socket
> element? In other words,
>
> <host name='example.org' port='6000'
transport='tcp|rdma'/> or
> <socket type='unix' path='/path/to/sock'/>
>
> where the type attribute in socket element would determine what other
> attributes can be used (path for unix sockets). Internally, both elements
> could be described by a unified socket structure.
The reason why I suggested reusing <host> is because you could in
principle have socket as an attribute even for other transports.
libvirt for example has it as a socket parameter for its ssh transport.
What about moving the transport to source:
<source protocol='gluster' name='Volume2/Image'
transport='tcp'>
<host name='example.org' port='6000'/>
</source>
<source protocol='gluster' name='Volume2/Image'
transport='unix'>
<socket path='/path/to/sock'/>
</source>
where hypothetically an ssh transport could have both host and socket
sub-elements.
Hmm, I'm starting to think we are making it too complicated :-) Let's see what
other think.
Jirka