On Tue, 2006-04-18 at 17:43 -0700, David Lutterkort wrote: > I think there is a much harder question concerning the interplay of > libvirt and the xm tools that this API discussion is somewhat > sidestepping. Currently, the xm tools set a defacto standard for how you > define inactive domains; libvirt will add a second mechanism with the > proposed API. And since the libvirt XML descriptions are a much nicer > way to describe a domain than the python scripts in /etc/xen, there's a > big temptation to write libvirt based tools that use the XML description > and replicate (some) of the xm functionality. That would give us three > separate ways to define an inactive domain on a local system - madness > ensues. > > I would be very curious to hear how people see how the libvirt XML > descriptions and xm or libvirt-based xm-like tools would interact. David, I think you're capturing my main concern here... deviation from the norm of other tools we'll end up possibly shipping in the distro. I can understand how, from an RHN point of view, these calls can be pretty easily used, but in ways that would be very RHN-specific. If that's different from how the commandline tools we ship w/ the distro deal with things, that could really cause some customer confusion. --Bret