On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 01:46:58PM -0500, Eunice Moon wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > Yes, thanks for the feedback and we are agreeing on the > code changes to be done. I also agree that there is a big issue > regarding different XML formats. > > I don't think the first option (to change the LDoms Manager XML > format to be based on the libvirt XML format) is a feasible one > since LDoms has been released public and some tools/applications > are already based on the LDom Manager's XML interfaces. > > So, it seems like we need to go for the second option (to provide > a conversion layer between the LDoms Manager and libvirt XML > formats) that would require some research and scoping. If the LDoms code is to be merged into libvirt, IMHO, it has to be 100% compliant with the defined libvirt XML format. Any conversion from the existing non-standard format will have to be done by the LDoms tools before calling into libvirt APIs, or be a add-on patch that Sun adds to their Solaris build of libvirt for back-compat. This kind of issue is precisely why code should be submitted to upstream projects immediately during the initial development and not developed in a private fork without discussion. Dan -- |: Red Hat, Engineering, Boston -o- http://people.redhat.com/berrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org -o- http://ovirt.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: GnuPG: 7D3B9505 -o- F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 :| -- Libvir-list mailing list Libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list