On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 07:54:54AM -0700, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 02/19/2014 04:06 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>
> > FWIW, for the initial 'virConnectOpen' API I think it probably would
> > be worthwhile us supporting a standardized "timeout" URI parameter.
> > That way if the remote service doesn't respond at all for some
> > reason users can have fine control. That's a sufficiently targetted
> > use case that it'd be easy to do, compared to timeouts for arbitrary
> > APIs.
>
> Indeed - having a timeout on the initial connection attempt is much more
> useful than worrying about individual APIs when you have a responsive
> connection, since it is the indeterminate time of establishing a remote
> connection that may be the problem here. But does that mean yet another
> C API? We already have virConnectOpen{,ReadOnly,Auth}. Or are you
> envisioning this just in the language bindings (Java, python - but not C)?
I was actually thinking of (ab)using the URI for this eg
qemu+tcp://somehost/system?timeout=60
Daniel
--
|: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list