On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 02:16:51PM -0400, Daniel Veillard wrote: > On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 06:42:10PM +0900, Masayuki Sunou wrote: > > Hi > > > > I understood as follows. > > > > * There is no problem in a proposal 1 and a proposal 2 > > * It is better that the user can choose use of XML and use of command-option > > by the situation > > > > Therefore, I want to add both proposal 1 and proposal 2 to virsh. > > There is no problem in this opinion? > > > > And, I am going to correct about naming. > > vif --> interface > > vbd --> disk > > That would be excellent ! > Jet-lag and lack of sleep made me confuse the vif and vbd in the name with > actual arguments. Changing the names is fine, maybe we can get better > words: maybe add-netif/remove-netif instead of just using 'interface' > which is very generic, and maybe using add-block/remove-block instead of > disk, some devices may actually not be disk (e.g. tape drive), but it's > just a minor suggestion. I disagree. We alread use 'interface' and 'disk' in the XML description of devices, so its better to keep consistent terminology IMHO. tap, floppy, cdrom, harddisk are all just sub-types of disk - which we deal with by using the 'device' attribute in the <disk> element. 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 -=|