On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 08:46:13AM -0600, Eric Blake wrote: > On 10/13/2015 06:20 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > >> There's of course the obvious solution - not change anything and have > >> mgmt apps calling two separate APIs - like they oughtta be doing today. > > > > That's the right solution IMHO > > > >> What's your view? > > > > I see no compelling reason to add anything to the API or implementation. > > We provide enough functionality already to deal with this scenario. Trying > > to overload multiple operations into a single API "for convenience" ends > > up not being convenient at all, due to the error reporting scenarios you > > mention. I don't see any real burden on applications to call these > > existing APIs when they wish to. > > I still think virsh can be taught the convenience method. I agree that > the lowlevel libvirt.so entry points don't need convenience, but we have > already established that virsh is perfectly capable of doing 2 or more > low-level API calls under a single command, in part because virsh has > decent error reporting about which step of the sequence fails. Oh sure, virsh could do this. I was only considering the API. Regards, Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :| -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list