[Xen-API] Xen-CIM, libvirt, and Xen tools stack

[Jim Fehlig <jfehlig@xxxxxxxxxx>]

All,

Given the recent work by Ewan and company on a Xen Management API and C 
binding, the Xen-CIM project must now decide which API to use - either 
the C binding directly or libvirt.  The Xen-CIM project planned to use 
libvirt all along, but given the developments over the past few months 
we must now decide whether to continue on this path or move directly to 
the C binding.
I will start a list some pros and cons that we can expand and ultimately 
use to determine the appropriate path moving forward.
Reasons to stay with libvirt:
- Xen-CIM providers would inherit libvirt's ability to work with 
arbitrary virtualization technologies
- Related to above, libvirt could become a standard API for managing 
various virtualization technologies
- When on box, libvirt can provide optimizations for satisfying a request

Reasons to use C binding directly
- libvirt must expose all of the functionality described in the 
management API spec before the providers can make use of it
- libvirt introduces another layer of code, assuming it eventually uses 
the C binding as well
- libvirt is not 'in tree'  (I do not have a problem with this but have 
heard it mentioned before so wanted to include it)
Regards,
Jim

_______________________________________________
xen-api mailing list
xen-api@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-api