On Mon, 2005-09-05 at 02:43 +0100, Steven Hand wrote:
> Well I certainly wouldn't want to confuse you by requiring you to master
> more concepts... :-)
You have a unique identifier which is already used by the tools and is
simple to understand. You want to add another one, related in some way
to the first one, because it's *easy to generate*.
I'm speechless at this logic.
Your other benefits include: easier to canonically order (memcmp, of
course, being too hard), easier to deal with (memcpy too hard as well I
guess) and, my favorite benefit of all those you came up with: it makes
the store *harder* to read.
Must be that famous dry British sense of humor 8)
> However: I think we both /agree/ on the fact that domain ids should be
> used to name things which are about domains (e.g. event channel ids
> and backend domain ids, etc, etc).
>
> And i think we both /agree/ that within a domain's piece of xenstore,
> that there's at least one 'name' which is a cluster-wide unique string
> and which persists across save/restore/migrate.
Indeed, these were never in doubt. You're arguing that we need *two*
names, and sorry, I just can't see it.
Rusty.
--
A bad analogy is like a leaky screwdriver -- Richard Braakman
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Home