On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 03:49:05PM +0200, Matthias Bolte wrote: > 2009/9/30 Daniel Veillard <veillard@xxxxxxxxxx>: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=523639 > > > > feature request which makes sense to me, the simple patch attached > > seems to be sufficient, one can define and have the description back > > in the dump. Doesn't try to keep the location of the tag, it always > > get serialized after <uuid>. > > The only drawbacks I can think of are: > > - others XML formats may require the same, but honnestly it's trivial > > - machine generated description (for example if the history log of > > a domain gets stored there) could grow a lot and I wonder if we > > have a hard limit on the size when transmitting xml descriptions > > Such a machine generated description would contradict the intention of > Rubin Simons for this description entry. IMHO this description entry > should be used for user-provided descriptions only. For any other > purpose (like a history log) another entry should be added. I agree that a '<description>' element should be exclusively for user supplied free-form text, not interpreted by applications. THe history log is the kind of idea that makes me think we should group it inside the top level <metadata> element. Daniel -- |: Red Hat, Engineering, London -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