On 02/21/2011 03:50 AM, Lyre wrote:
Hi all:
I noticed that there's some inconsistent behaviors in libvirt-php, and
wondering what's the best way to handle them.
In libvirt-php:
libvirt_list_domains() returns an array of all domain resource;
libvirt_list_active_domains() returns an array of running domain ids;
libvirt_list_defined_domains() returns an array of defined domain names.
and
libvirt_list_storagepools() returns an array of actived storagepool names.
In my opinion, returning an array of names would be better when
listing all kinds of objects.
Well, good point Lyre. I guess we should be change it to something like:
libvirt_list_domains() - return domain pointers for all domains
libvirt_list_active_domains() - return pointers for active domains
libvirt_list_defined_domains() - return pointers for inactive domains,
also we should consider renaming it to list_inactive_domains()
Also, I guess we should add a new function:
libvirt_list_domain_names() - return names of all domains (both active
and inactive)
This should be applied to everything - networks, storage pools etc...
And the naming convenances, let's take domains as an example.
libvirt-php provied
libvirt_list_domains() for all domains, which has no corresponding
function in libvirt.
libvirt_list_active_domains() for running domains, corresponding to
virConnectListDomains() in libvirt.
libvirt_list_defined_domains() for defined domains, corresponding to
virConnectListDefinedDomains() in libvirt.
I believe it is fine. However, for defined objects, sometimes it used
term "defined" (libvirt_list_defined_domains),
and sometimes use term "inactive" (libvirt_get_inactive_domain_count)
in contrast to "active". Which would be better?
For this one I guess we should use naming like "all", "active" and
"inactive".
Michal
--
Michal Novotny<minovotn@xxxxxxxxxx>, RHCE
Virtualization Team (xen userspace), Red Hat
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list