6:19 p.m.
When I look at remote gems I see:
- libvirt (0.2.0), "A ruby client library providing an interface to libvirt
via FFI"
- ruby-libvirt (0.3.0), "Provides bindings for libvirt"
I've been using ruby-libvirt, but maybe I should give libvirt a try? Has
anyone used libvirt (0.2.0) and developed opinions they'd like to share?
-jb
3:15 p.m.
On 03/10/11 - 07:19:53PM, James Barkley wrote:
When I look at remote gems I see:
- libvirt (0.2.0), "A ruby client library providing an interface to libvirt
via FFI"
- ruby-libvirt (0.3.0), "Provides bindings for libvirt"
I've been using ruby-libvirt, but maybe I should give libvirt a try? Has
anyone used libvirt (0.2.0) and developed opinions they'd like to share?
I'm biased since I am the maintainer of ruby-libvirt, but I think
you should stick with ruby-libvirt :). I do more active maintenance of the
bindings than what I saw in the "libvirt" gem, and since I monitor the libvirt
list I keep a very up-to-date with what is going on. The downside is that
if you are using anything but MRI, the ruby-libvirt bindings won't work. Since
most people are not, this is not usually an issue, but it is something to
consider.
--
Chris Lalancette
5:59 a.m.
Thanks for the info. Are there any plans to extend the functionality of the
ruby-libvirt gem beyond just the bindings? For instance, convenience
functions, OVF parsing, etc? We have needed this functionality so ended up
building a gem called "ovfparse" for fetching and parsing these types of
files (code at https://github.com/ruby-ovf/ovfparse).
-jb
On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 4:15 PM, Chris Lalancette <clalance(a)redhat.com>wrote:
On 03/10/11 - 07:19:53PM, James Barkley wrote:
> When I look at remote gems I see:
>
> - libvirt (0.2.0), "A ruby client library providing an interface to
libvirt
> via FFI"
> - ruby-libvirt (0.3.0), "Provides bindings for libvirt"
>
> I've been using ruby-libvirt, but maybe I should give libvirt a try? Has
> anyone used libvirt (0.2.0) and developed opinions they'd like to share?
I'm biased since I am the maintainer of ruby-libvirt, but I think
you should stick with ruby-libvirt :). I do more active maintenance of the
bindings than what I saw in the "libvirt" gem, and since I monitor the
libvirt
list I keep a very up-to-date with what is going on. The downside is that
if you are using anything but MRI, the ruby-libvirt bindings won't work.
Since
most people are not, this is not usually an issue, but it is something to
consider.
--
Chris Lalancette
8:23 a.m.
On 03/13/11 - 06:59:36AM, James Barkley wrote:
Thanks for the info. Are there any plans to extend the functionality
of the
ruby-libvirt gem beyond just the bindings? For instance, convenience
functions, OVF parsing, etc? We have needed this functionality so ended up
building a gem called "ovfparse" for fetching and parsing these types of
files (code at https://github.com/ruby-ovf/ovfparse).
The current bindings are, indeed, just a thin wrapper on top of the libvirt
API. I have had some requests (and patches) for a higher-level, more ruby-like
layer on top of the standard bindings. I haven't yet had time to take a look
at them, but I am not opposed to having a better library on top.
--
Chris Lalancette
5002
days inactive
5005
days old
3 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
Chris Lalancette -
James Barkley