On 03/20/2017 09:05 AM, Francesco Romani wrote:
On 03/17/2017 11:07 PM, Michal Skrivanek wrote:
On 17 Mar 2017, at 15:57, Francesco Romani <fromani@redhat.com> wrote:
On 03/16/2017 08:03 PM, Francesco Romani wrote:
On 03/16/2017 01:26 PM, Francesco Romani wrote:
On 03/16/2017 11:47 AM, Michal Skrivanek wrote:
> On 16 Mar 2017, at 09:45, Francesco Romani <fromani@redhat.com> wrote: > > We talked about sending storage device purely on metadata, letting Vdsm > rebuild them and getting the XML like today. > > In the other direction, Vdsm will pass through the XML (perhaps only > parts of it, e.g. the devices subtree) like before. > > This way we can minimize the changes we are uncertain of, and more > importantly, we can minimize the risky changes. > > > The following is a realistic example of how the XML could look like if > we send all but the storage devices. It is built using my pyxmlpickle > module (see [3] below). That’s quite verbose. How much work would it need to actually minimize it and turn it into something more simple. Most such stuff should go away and I believe it would be beneficial to make it difficult to use to discourage using metadata as a generic junkyard It is verbose because it is generic - indeed perhaps too generic. I can try something else based on a concept from Martin Polednik. Will follow up soon. Early preview: https://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/q/status:open+project:vdsm+branch:master+topic:vi...
still plenty of TODOs, I expect to be reviewable material worst case monday morning. This is how typical XML could look like:
<metadata> <ovirt-tune:qos /> <ovirt-vm:vm /> <devices> <ovirt-instance:graphics> not under the <ovirt-vm:vm>? any reason? No reason, I'll move under it
Unfortunately we need to have the prefix for all the elements, not just for the top-level one. Updating. -- Francesco Romani Red Hat Engineering Virtualization R & D IRC: fromani