On Wed, Mar 06, 2019 at 09:30:32AM +0100, Ján Tomko wrote: > On Wed, Mar 06, 2019 at 08:41:48AM +0100, Peter Krempa wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 05, 2019 at 16:56:43 +0100, Andrea Bolognani wrote: > > > On Tue, 2019-03-05 at 15:38 +0100, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > > So I agree neither scenario is exactly perfect, but I still think > > > adding non-transitional alias devices would overall be more > > > user-friendly. > > > > I don't think it makes sense to add it at the qemu level. From libvirt's > > point of view users should be shielded from any qemu impl detail or > > inconsistency as libvirt is the 'user friendly'[1] layer. In qemu the > > devices would be the same and thus does not make sense to do that > > because it would be more confusing. > > > > You can argue that we should add the alias at the libvirt level though. > > > > You can, but please don't. Indeed, at the libvirt level we've always tried to take the view that there should be one way to expressing each concept/feature. Adding new names / xml elements that duplicate existing supported concepts to make things "consistent" is a slippery slope becasue there are 100's of places to which that can apply when you have hindsight. It is not going to make a significant difference to how "user friendly" libvirt is - that is not a core goal in its own right at the API / XML schema level. It is can be a factor in deciding between multiple competing designs when first adding a feature, but it isn't a reason to add duplication in the API / XML. Regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :| -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
