On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 11:31:24AM -0700, David Lutterkort wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-06-27 at 10:51 +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> > 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 
>
> That way, the relative position of existing tags doesn't change, though
> it's really not much of a difference. (Though I find having all the
> storage in one place a little cleaner)
So <storage> is a single top level grouping for multiple <disk> elements,
while <machine> and <network> are multiple top level elements with no
grouping.
For consistentency perhaps we should either
- Kill <storage> and have <disk> at top level
Or
- Add <machines> and <networks> for grouping the multiple machine
and network elements.
BTW, I thing <machine> is better called <domain> for consistency with the
libvirt naming of <domain>. The <network> and <disk> elements already
match the libvirt terminology.
Regards,
Dan.
--
|=- Red Hat, Engineering, Emerging Technologies, Boston. +1 978 392 2496 -=|
|=- Perl modules: http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ -=|
|=- Projects: http://freshmeat.net/~danielpb/ -=|
|=- GnuPG: 7D3B9505 F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 -=|
_______________________________________________
et-mgmt-tools mailing list
et-mgmt-tools@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/et-mgmt-tools
