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

[Ronald Perez <ronpz@xxxxxxxxxx>]

"Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote on 09/15/2006 10:32:33 AM:
> On Fri, Sep 15, 2006 at 10:13:45AM -0400, Ronald Perez wrote:
> 
> 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.
> 
> Dan.

Thanks. So if John's "class hierarchy" were
really a recursive representation (as mentioned previously), that would
be equivalent to your "overlapping sets"? e.g., host_CPUs ==
VCPUs on a domU.

How do you envision capabilities being represented?
By the presence or absence of a field/feature/method or a bitmap or ???

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