On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 15:49:01 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > Il 26/10/2012 15:38, Jiri Denemark ha scritto: > > <host name='example.org' port='6000' transport='tcp'/> or > > <host socket='/path/to/sock' transport='unix'/> > > > > However, I don't like this too much either. What if we add a general socket > > element? In other words, > > > > <host name='example.org' port='6000' transport='tcp|rdma'/> or > > <socket type='unix' path='/path/to/sock'/> > > > > where the type attribute in socket element would determine what other > > attributes can be used (path for unix sockets). Internally, both elements > > could be described by a unified socket structure. > > The reason why I suggested reusing <host> is because you could in > principle have socket as an attribute even for other transports. > libvirt for example has it as a socket parameter for its ssh transport. > > What about moving the transport to source: > > <source protocol='gluster' name='Volume2/Image' transport='tcp'> > <host name='example.org' port='6000'/> > </source> > > <source protocol='gluster' name='Volume2/Image' transport='unix'> > <socket path='/path/to/sock'/> > </source> > > where hypothetically an ssh transport could have both host and socket > sub-elements. Hmm, I'm starting to think we are making it too complicated :-) Let's see what other think. Jirka -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list