On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 20:25 -0700, David Lutterkort wrote: > On Sat, 2007-06-09 at 14:51 +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote: > > - Including vcpu, memory, graphics and nic in this metadata is mixing > > up two things - the things the image need in order to boot and the > > defaults recommended when instantiating a guest with the image. > > Perhaps put them in a different toplevel element e.g. > > > >  > > After looking at this again, I realized that you think of the metadata > slightly differently than I do: note that I don't have a <boot_options> > tag, I rather have a <machine> tag, that describes the attributes of a > virtual machine. The reason for structuring it this way is that if we > ever need multi-VM appliances, it's at least obvious how the metadata > format should be extended. > > Having a <defaults> section at the level you suggest would make > describing a multi-VM image kidna hairy. I don't imagine this multi-VM appliance thing will ever work out and be useful, but if we did want to do that surely we'd have multiple <image> descriptions? The boot descriptions, disks and defaults are all distinct and unrelated ... the only metadata I can imagine to tie them all together would be some way for them to find each other on the network. (i.e. to allow for this, I'd just add an <images> root element) Cheers, Mark. _______________________________________________ et-mgmt-tools mailing list et-mgmt-tools@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/et-mgmt-tools
