On 02/21/2011 03:50 AM, Lyre wrote:
Hi all:
I noticed that there's some inconsistent behaviors in libvirt-php, and wondering what's the best way to handle them.
In libvirt-php:
libvirt_list_domains() returns an array of all domain resource; libvirt_list_active_domains() returns an array of running domain ids; libvirt_list_defined_domains() returns an array of defined domain names.
and
libvirt_list_storagepools() returns an array of actived storagepool names.
In my opinion, returning an array of names would be better when listing all kinds of objects.
Well, good point Lyre. I guess we should be change it to something like: libvirt_list_domains() - return domain pointers for all domains libvirt_list_active_domains() - return pointers for active domains libvirt_list_defined_domains() - return pointers for inactive domains, also we should consider renaming it to list_inactive_domains() Also, I guess we should add a new function: libvirt_list_domain_names() - return names of all domains (both active and inactive) This should be applied to everything - networks, storage pools etc...
And the naming convenances, let's take domains as an example.
libvirt-php provied libvirt_list_domains() for all domains, which has no corresponding function in libvirt. libvirt_list_active_domains() for running domains, corresponding to virConnectListDomains() in libvirt. libvirt_list_defined_domains() for defined domains, corresponding to virConnectListDefinedDomains() in libvirt.
I believe it is fine. However, for defined objects, sometimes it used term "defined" (libvirt_list_defined_domains), and sometimes use term "inactive" (libvirt_get_inactive_domain_count) in contrast to "active". Which would be better?
For this one I guess we should use naming like "all", "active" and "inactive". Michal -- Michal Novotny<minovotn@redhat.com>, RHCE Virtualization Team (xen userspace), Red Hat