On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 09:57:48PM +1100, Justin Clift wrote: > On Nov 8, 2010, at 9:52 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > No, not really. This is a completely different scenario. You haven't got two > > fundamentally different concepts here, this is just a Xen vs KVM vs VMWare > > scenario where you've just got different impls of the same concept. > > > >> So, I still reckon we should go ahead with this. :) > > > > I don't agree. > > Heh, ok. What's the better approach for this? Should we adjust to use > something else like "guest" generically instead, or leave it as is, or ? We should at least be consistent in what we use in virsh output. The command names are all 'dom-' and the libvirt API is virDomain*, so I've got a slight preference for domain, but guest works too. Daniel -- |: Red Hat, Engineering, London -o- http://people.redhat.com/berrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org -o- http://deltacloud.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