[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [Libvir] Re: [PATCH 1/2] virDomainMigrate implementation (Xen only, no remote, no qemu, no virsh)



John Levon wrote:
On Mon, Jul 16, 2007 at 10:47:59AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:

If we need to express some choice of data channel, TCP, vs SSH, vs SSL/TLS
then figure out a way to expose that in the API with an hypervisor agnostic
way. Exposing raw QEMU migration URIs is *not* hypervisor agnostic.
Why? If nothing but QEMU support ssh:// then exposing an API to do SSH migration isn't really hypervisor agnostic. It's an API for QEMU.

You're presuming things never change (and that new backends never get
added to libvirt!)

There's a big difference between taking two implements of SSH migration, finding the commonality, and building an abstraction verses just modeling the KVM ssh:// URI. The chances that a second implementation can be exposed nicely through the later is small.

What I'd rather see is something that exposed the bits of both KVM and Xen and then a second "agnostic" interface. For instance, for KVM you may have:

virDomainMigrateKVM(..., URI);

For Xen you'd have:

virDomainMigrateXen(..., hostname, port);

But then you'd also have:

virDomainMigrate(dom, connPtr);

So I'm not necessarily arguing that there shouldn't be an agnostic interface, but rather that the lower bits should be exposed too.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori

regards
john



[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]