[Xen-API] API design question realted to security extensions for Xen-API

[Stefan Berger <stefanb@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello,

 we are looking for advice on an
API-design question. The question is related to our proposed extensions
for managing Xen security policies through the Xen-API, but we think that
the discussion can be lead on a more abstract level to get more input from
a wider audience.
On a more concret level and as background:
The problem is related to the fact that today there is one type of security
policy in Xen, but in the future there might be different ones. The Xen-API
extensions that we are proposing should be able to accomodate those future
extensions as well thorugh the function calls we are providing, though
today we might not exactly know how these extensions look like, what functions
they need and what paramters those functions need.
 
For the design of our current API we
considered the kind of functionality we wanted to have and created an API
 with function signatures having *well-defined input parameters and
output parameters* in forms of data types and structures. This lead to
the design of a *broad API* with very specilized calls that work well for
what we want to do with what we have today, but these calls are likely
not able to work with different types of policies due to the parameters
passed to these functions and the type of return values they get.

In trying to accomodate future extensions
where we would likely not know the parameters needed for function calls,
we could resort to a *narrow API* with rather generic function call names
where we would pass an operation code about what the function is supposed
to do along with some form of encoding parameters needed for the operation.
This encoding of the parameters might be a 'char *' with a string in XML
form. The return value could also be in form of XML. 
[A scheme definition of the XML, though,
would in turn reflect that we still don't know what the future parameters
might be and might therefore again be subject to change.] 
Another option would be to pass a structure
that can accomodate our current well-defined input parameters and adapt
the structure when new parameters are needed in future version of a library.

So what the decision comes down to is
the choice of either implementing  a broad API with functions taking
well-defined data types and structures where new functions might need to
be add in the future to accomodate future functionality  *OR* a generic
API with generic function names and parameters that might not need to be
extended.


Some background knowledge on the implementation-level
of such things  inside the libxen 'C' library helps:

It is easy to have well-defined data
structures (and arrays of those) serialized and deserialized by libxen
for easy creation and consumption of datstructures by applications using
the Xen-API. This would speak for a broad API with well-defined data structures.
  XML-encoded parameters and results, on the other hand, would require
creation and parsing of the parameters and return values by an application,
but could accomodate future extensions more easily.

Any insights on such a design decision
are welcome.

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