On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 02:35:15PM -0700, David Lutterkort wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-03-31 at 16:47 -0500, Daniel Veillard wrote:
> > Well libvirt doesn't have the notion of 'passive' domain yet, i.e. domain
> > we know exists but are not running or activated at a given point in time.
> > If we define virDomainSetConfig() then we have to be able to extract at least
> > the name (and uuid) from the xmlDesc. And that routine could then returm
> > a virDomainPtr associated to this unactive domain (or the associated
> > active domain if it exists). Those unactive domains could then be listed
> > in virConnectListDomains().
>
> How would that jive with other ways to create inactive domains ? Right
> now I can create a file in /etc/xen and immediately have an incative
> domain; I always thought that the xm scripts would eventually be
> replaced by libvirt-based scripts and conventions for where to put
> files, but that libvirt would remain focused on active domains.
>
> I agree that it would be nice to have a standard way to enumerate
> 'defined' (as opposed to 'active') domains, but it seems a little odd to
> require a library to do what amounts to putting a file into a
> well-defined place.
Yeah. To be honest I don't understand what is advantage of this
solution (configs in xenstore). I think we already have in better and
wide supported solutions how share data between more nodes (hosts). I
don't think that we should replace OS filesystem with something like
xenstore. I think we can implement "a standard way to enumerate
inactive domain" without xenstore (for example by some search $PATH
and standard FS).
Karel
--
Karel Zak <kzak@xxxxxxxxxx>