On Thu, 2007-06-28 at 23:59 +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 11:31:24AM -0700, David Lutterkort wrote: > > > > My intention was to have that all in the image tag: > > > >  > > > > 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. I don't follow this - yes, in the abstract it makes sense; but when I look at an actual image.xml, having the storage element there seems to make the XML clearer. I'd change it if that is seen as the crucial issue keeping these patches from being committed. Otherwise, I'd prefer leaving <storage> as it is. > 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. Heh ;) I had that at some point and somebody objected to calling that <domain> .. I'll change the code to use <domain> David _______________________________________________ et-mgmt-tools mailing list et-mgmt-tools@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/et-mgmt-tools
