On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 08:08:37PM +0100, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 9:33 PM, Christophe Fergeau <cfergeau@redhat.com> wrote:
The way it's done is just a band-aid though. The need for this 'type' member in GVirConfigInterface and GVirConfigDeviceDisk is a clear indication that they should be separate class.
You mean there should be a seperate class for source type?
The interface xml node is <interface type="xxx"> .... </interface> What I meant in the commit message is that instead of trying to handle all possible interface types in a single GVirConfigInterface, we should have one class per interface type (ie <interface type="xxx"> would be represented by one class, and <interface type="yyy"> would be a different class). Since the value of the attribute is not free-form, this is workable. And this is what the "Add GVirConfigInterfaceNetwork" patch does. I haven't done it (yet?) for the GVirConfigDeviceDisk class since for now it was no big deal not to have the specialized classes. Christophe