On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 10:12:57AM +0100, Karel Zak wrote: > On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 11:52:01PM +0000, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > A good sanity check for a proposal is to ask yourself - how would this > > be implemented & data represented for QEMU or UserModeLinux, or VMWare. > > If you can think of plausible implementations / representations then > > that's a good sign the proposal isn't too Xen specific. > > Yes, I understand. But what if we found a feature which is supported > by Xen and VMWare, but is not supported by QEMU? What if we will in > future want to support other virtualization project which is poor for > features? Is possible write libvirt based application which is really > useful, but independent on a virtualization technology? It's an API design issue, not a problem of accepting or rejecting features. Don't get focused on the wrong issue :-) Daniel -- Red Hat Virtualization group http://redhat.com/virtualization/ Daniel Veillard | virtualization library http://libvirt.org/ veillard@xxxxxxxxxx | libxml GNOME XML XSLT toolkit http://xmlsoft.org/ http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/