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

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



On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 05:45:33PM +0000, David Lutterkort wrote:
> 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.

  Okay, well I think the recursive definition is really the worse
for validation and processing. 
And 

  <interface>
  ...
  </interface>

  <interface>
  ...
  </interface>

  <interface>
  ...
  </interface>

 Means 3 distinct XML documents, and that you can do no static checking
 at all at least at the XML level. So I don't understand why you say
it can't help with static checking.

Daniel

-- 
Daniel Veillard      | libxml Gnome XML XSLT toolkit  http://xmlsoft.org/
daniel veillard com  | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/
http://veillard.com/ | virtualization library  http://libvirt.org/


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