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

Re: [Libvir] [PATCH][RFC] libvirt ldoms support



On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 08:33:28PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:

> > > If the LDoms code is to be merged into libvirt, IMHO, it has to
> > > be 100% compliant with the defined libvirt XML format.
> > 
> > Or extend it, surely?
> 
> Well there are two separate scenarios here. Some of the elements in the
> the LDoms XML  are expressing concepts for which there is no existing
> libvirt XML format defined. If they are suitably generic that they can
> be applied to other non-LDoms drivers then we can add them to the official
> libvirt XML format, otherwise they'll have to be changed to be suitably
> flexible. Other XML elements in the LDoms XML are representing things
> that are already represented in libvirt, but using a different format.
> 
> The key is that we need an XML format that has consistent representation
> across all drivers. IMHO, the LDoms format as illustrated earlier in this
> thread is very far away from being suitable for inclusion in libvirt.

Fine. I don't disagree with any of this.

> > (I know I've whined before but it would be awfully nice to have some-one
> > step up and update the schema: then it would be possible to insist all
> > such changes update the schema too.)
> 
> Yes, but that doesn't excuse developing these extensions in private and then
> just dumping them on the list as a final solution.

That's hardly fair. There's a big 'RFC' in the subject and Ryan
explicitly said they weren't ready. Eunice has been responding to all
your comments. Who's been talking of "final solutions"?

> The only practical way to develop  extensions to the XML format is to
> have upfront discussions on the proposal prior to implementation so
> all stakeholder have the chance to discuss the propsals.

I'm not sure I agree with this. Talk is pretty cheap, whereas prototypes
are actually useful. These patches are a prototype implementation:
they've been sent out for discussion, and that's happening. I'm really
not sure where the issue is.

regards,
john


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