| |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
xen-cim
Szymanski, Lukasz K wrote:
> Jim -
>
> I am working on that association providers patch right now.
>
> As far as generating vs. including the input files goes:
>
> - At first pass it was easier to generate them instead of writing them
> by hand. Having said that, we now have some generated.
> - Generating the files gives us some more flexibility for the future.
> Each new provider/association will have to be added to the suite and we
> would want to make that process as painless as possible. Having to
> craft each new provider/association file by hand may be too much of a
> pain - or not. I am not sure how many more we want to add at this
> point.
> - I am open to either option, just let me know what you want for the
> association provider patch. I am writing a script to generate the
> files, but there may be some customization necessary as well, meaning,
> the patch might actually be easier as a bunch of included files.
>
Generating them for now is fine. If the association input files are
easier to hand-edit, that's fine too. We can move to individual files
for the instance providers when/if it becomes necessary. So I'm fine
with a patch that either generates association input files or adds
individual input files for associations.
I have a feeling the input files will eventually become class-specific,
at which point it would be easier to have individual ones.
Jim
_______________________________________________
Xen-cim mailing list
Xen-cim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-cim
|
|
|
| |
|
Home