On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 06:55:18PM +0200, Peter Krempa wrote: > On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 17:40:51 +0100, Daniel Berrange wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 06:17:24PM +0200, Peter Krempa wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 17:11:19 +0100, Daniel Berrange wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 12:55:58AM -0500, Eric Blake wrote: > > [...] > > > So overall, either we should turn on validation for all our schemas, > > or we should require a VALIDATE flag for this new API. Both avoid > > special case behaviour with the checkpoint APIs. > > I definitely do not want to add a new API with no XML validation. > Whether we'll require bundling a way bigger change which actually may > break existing APPS using invalid XML is worth together with this, I'm > not sure. > > But adding more legacy cruft seems to be pointless. I don't think its legacy cruft, when it is our normal practice, including in the new XML we added just in the release last month. Validation as standard is only a compelling thing if we're going todo it universally. When only 1 out of 14 schemas does validation that doesn't justify the divergance in behaviour IMHO. 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
