Re: [netcf-devel] [libvirt] [RFC] Reporting host interface status/statistics via netcf/libvirt, and listing active vs. inactive interfaces

On Fri, 2009-06-19 at 17:17 +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 06:13:37PM +0200, Daniel Veillard wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 10:50:10PM +0000, David Lutterkort wrote: > > > On Thu, 2009-06-18 at 20:48 +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 07:05:29PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I think this is a really unpleasant format to deal with. IMHO there should > > > > > not be nesting for <bridge>/<bond> tags. They should just refer to their > > > > > slave device by name. So that last example would be better shown as a set > > > > > of independant intefaces > > > > > > > > Rationalizing the reason why I don't like this format. The relationship of > > > > NICs essentially forms a DAG. This format is attempting to define a tree > > > > from the POV of a single leaf node. > > > > > > They do form a tree, with the exception of VLAN's: every other instance > > > of an interface can be contained/used by at most one other interface. We > > > need to treat VLAN's a little special, and allow them to reference > > > external (to the XML) interfaces. > > > > Trying to digest that long discussion maybe there is a solution: > > > > - Dan thin a pure tree representation is not sufficient to express > > all relationships between interfaces > > - Dave would like to preserve the ability run the checks on a single > > XML instance > > > > I think both can be accomodated but that requires a slight change of > > API, i.e. the XML will be able to define a set of interfaces. Basically > > we could do > > Urgh, no I think that's even worse. I'd prefer either of the 2 options > we've currently discussed over that. Agreed .. that format wouldn't help much with static checking.