On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 02:16:51PM -0400, Daniel Veillard wrote:
On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 06:42:10PM +0900, Masayuki Sunou wrote:
Hi
I understood as follows.
* There is no problem in a proposal 1 and a proposal 2 * It is better that the user can choose use of XML and use of command-option by the situation
Therefore, I want to add both proposal 1 and proposal 2 to virsh. There is no problem in this opinion?
And, I am going to correct about naming. vif --> interface vbd --> disk
That would be excellent ! Jet-lag and lack of sleep made me confuse the vif and vbd in the name with actual arguments. Changing the names is fine, maybe we can get better words: maybe add-netif/remove-netif instead of just using 'interface' which is very generic, and maybe using add-block/remove-block instead of disk, some devices may actually not be disk (e.g. tape drive), but it's just a minor suggestion.
I disagree. We alread use 'interface' and 'disk' in the XML description of devices, so its better to keep consistent terminology IMHO. tap, floppy, cdrom, harddisk are all just sub-types of disk - which we deal with by using the 'device' attribute in the <disk> element. Regards, Dan -- |=- Red Hat, Engineering, Emerging Technologies, Boston. +1 978 392 2496 -=| |=- Perl modules: http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ -=| |=- Projects: http://freshmeat.net/~danielpb/ -=| |=- GnuPG: 7D3B9505 F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 -=|