Hi Dan, On Tue, 22 May 2007 00:36:31 +0100 "Daniel P. Berrange" wrote: > > I think that would be a waste because we would miss an opportunity to get > > new customers. I personally want to support the guest was created by non-libvirt > > app too. > > That is almost correct. We do support management of guests that were created > by non-libvirt based applictions - if the config options they used are capable > of being expressed in terms of libvirt XML. > > Now there are certainly a number of Xen configuration options that we don't > currently support in libvirt. We've perhaps got the 75% common case that > people use. I don't think we'll ever get 100% because there are some things > that are really very Xen specific, but that shouldn't stop us aiming to > improve our coverage. There's plenty of scope for more work to let us deal > with 95%+ of the Xen config options. IMHO, not hitting the remaining few % > is a worthwhile tradeoff given the huge benefits of having a config representation > which isn't tied to Xen, particularly if that remaining 5% is the type of > niche edge case config rarely used. Thank you for replying and I understand you. We will try to suggest about libvirt XML by other new thread like USB. > As always, I'd welcome suggestions & patches for representing more of the Xen > config options in the generic XML format. The obvious big outstanding areas > we've currently got are, USB (we've already agreed on format, now just need > to implement it), serial/parallel devices (cf other thread suggesting a way > to represent it), sound devices (no suggestions yet, but several end-user > feature requests). Okay. Thanks so much ! Saori.