On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 12:28:47PM +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > No, surely we should fix the XML to represent it, and then it /would/ > > work. Must be better than another identical API. > > Historically there has been a bit of a debate about this. It's not > clear if the XML is meant to represent static configuration about the > domain (eg. what disks it has), versus administration of the domain > (how vCPUs are pinned for example). I think it's become evident that the XML represents the dynamic state of the domain - for example, the whole code is structured around things like the console pty being available. This would include administrative actions, especially ones that should be persisted. Put another way, there's nowhere else for it to go! Yes, it would have been nice for a clear separation between the three things (hypervisor-agnostic description of a guest 'profile', i.e. image.rng, configuration of a domain, and runtime state of a domain), but it cannot be changed now. Furthermore, the API does not include the notion of persistence, sadly. regards john -- Libvir-list mailing list Libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list