This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
Home Products Support Community News


Re: [Xen-API] New API Document and C Bindings

To: Ronald Perez <ronpz@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-API] New API Document and C Bindings
From: "Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 15:32:33 +0100
Cc: xen-api-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Xen-API <xen-api@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 07:33:12 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <OF180C01C8.5F6D619D-ON852571EA.004DC838-852571EA.004E2A37@xxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-api-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Discussion of API issues surrounding Xen <xen-api.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-api@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-api>, <mailto:xen-api-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-api>, <mailto:xen-api-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <OFC2FFE7C3.84515963-ON882571EA.004CBB1E-882571EA.004D57AD@xxxxxxxxxx> <OF180C01C8.5F6D619D-ON852571EA.004DC838-852571EA.004E2A37@xxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: "Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-api-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
On Fri, Sep 15, 2006 at 10:13:45AM -0400, Ronald Perez wrote:
> Gareth Bestor wrote on 09/15/2006 10:04:46 AM:
> > I'm kinda leaning towards what Dan is thinking - right now Dom0 is 
> 'special' only 
> > because it is the one Domain given administrative control of all the 
> host 
> > resources. But if this role is effectively farmed out to future drive 
> and stub 
> > domains, and this ability can be added arbitrarily to *any* domain, then 
> > effectively any domain can assume the role of a (partial) management 
> domain at any 
> > time, so we're basically left with a flat model - ie "all domains are 
> created equal" :-)
> > 
> > - Gareth
> > 
> I don't think Dan and John are as far apart as Ewan's first proposal and 
> Dan's/John's proposals. I think Dan and John are saying the same thing, 
> but probably in two different languages / from two different perspectives.

We're both basically talking about how you represent the different 
capabilities of domains. John is talking in terms of a hierarchy of
classes, where one class is a sub-set of the other. I'm talking in
terms of overlapping sets which is a more general representation.

Fundamentally the important thing we all agree on is the need for a
way of expressing the differing capabilities of domains.

> If I'm wrong, someone please clarify the differences between Dan's and 
> John's proposals from both a CIM and Xen API standpoint.

We are primarily talking about how to express things in the Xen API - this
does not have to match how its expressed in CIM (provided we expose enough
information in Xen API for CIM to doing a suitable re-mapping). For example
in the Xen API we can express all domains the same way, but that doesn't
stop CIM expressing Domain-0 in a special Host class, seprate from other
guest VMs if that's appropriate for the CIM model.

|=- Red Hat, Engineering, Emerging Technologies, Boston.  +1 978 392 2496 -=|
|=-           Perl modules: http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/              -=|
|=-               Projects: http://freshmeat.net/~danielpb/               -=|
|=-  GnuPG: 7D3B9505   F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505  -=| 

xen-api mailing list