On 11/15/12 00:20, Eric Blake wrote:
On 11/14/2012 11:43 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
>> Bleah. Raw XML parsing. Wouldn't it be easier in and cleaner convert
>> this piece code to use the XML parser and xpath?
>
> Not the first time we've done this. I agree that using the XML parser
> and xpath is probably nicer, but it actually takes more code than a
> simple strstr.
>
>> The code looks OK in what it should be doing, but I don't like the raw
>> XML parse-hacking stuff. The only reason to put this in as-is would be
>> if it would be really complicated/overheading to use xpath here.
>
> I'll post an interdiff that shows what it would take to use xpath, and
> we can decide based on how nice or ugly it looks.
Here's the diff; any decisions on whether to go with xpath?
tools/virsh-snapshot.c | 61
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
1 file changed, 40 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
I definitely like the xpath version better.
Peter