[Engine-devel] Forward comp[atibility of OVF
Hi,<br><br>I wanted to know if we want to support forward compatibility of= OVF format, which is used for export/import of VMs/VM Templates.<br><br>Fo= r example, <br>I create a VM in a 3.1 system, export it to an export Domain= .<br>Should I be able to import this VM on a 3.0 system?<br><br>Obviously, = backwards compatibility (from older version to newer) is desired and is kep= t, but do we really need forward compatibility also?<br><br>The reason I'm = asking is some changes that need to be done in current OVF format to suppor= t new features. These new changes will be backwards-compatible with old OVF=
--=_bc9b6b95-2d7c-4155-b37b-029c2446b231 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, I wanted to know if we want to support forward compatibility of OVF format, which is used for export/import of VMs/VM Templates. For example, I create a VM in a 3.1 system, export it to an export Domain. Should I be able to import this VM on a 3.0 system? Obviously, backwards compatibility (from older version to newer) is desired and is kept , but do we really need forward compatibility also? The reason I'm asking is some changes that need to be done in current OVF format to support new features. These new changes will be backwards-compatible with old OVF formats, but is it desirable for them to be forward compatible? Regards, Mike --=_bc9b6b95-2d7c-4155-b37b-029c2446b231 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <html><head><style type=3D'text/css'>p { margin: 0; }</style></head><body><= div style=3D'font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 12pt; color: #000000'= formats, but is it desirable for them to be forward compatible?<br><br><di= v><span name=3D"x"></span>Regards,<br>Mike<span name=3D"x"></span><br></div=
<br></div></body></html> --=_bc9b6b95-2d7c-4155-b37b-029c2446b231--
On 22/03/12 11:04, Mike Kolesnik wrote:
Hi,
I wanted to know if we want to support forward compatibility of OVF format, which is used for export/import of VMs/VM Templates.
For example, I create a VM in a 3.1 system, export it to an export Domain. Should I be able to import this VM on a 3.0 system?
I think we should support only backwards compatibility no need for forward compatibility. The question is should we block importing such a VM (that it's version is not something the engine identifies) I think we should block it otherwise the engine will import the VM which can fail sometimes with errors like NullPointerException which will end-up being filed as a BZ.
Obviously, backwards compatibility (from older version to newer) is desired and is kept, but do we really need forward compatibility also?
The reason I'm asking is some changes that need to be done in current OVF format to support new features. These new changes will be backwards-compatible with old OVF formats, but is it desirable for them to be forward compatible?
Regards, Mike
_______________________________________________ Engine-devel mailing list Engine-devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel
On 22/03/12 11:04, Mike Kolesnik wrote:
Hi,
I wanted to know if we want to support forward compatibility of OVF format, which is used for export/import of VMs/VM Templates.
For example, I create a VM in a 3.1 system, export it to an export Domain. Should I be able to import this VM on a 3.0 system?
I think we should support only backwards compatibility no need for forward compatibility. The question is should we block importing such a VM (that it's version is not something the engine identifies) I think we should block it otherwise the engine will import the VM which can fail sometimes with errors like NullPointerException which will end-up being filed as a BZ.
I agree that this should be blocked, however to do so for older versions will require extra work that i don't know if we need or not..
Obviously, backwards compatibility (from older version to newer) is desired and is kept, but do we really need forward compatibility also?
The reason I'm asking is some changes that need to be done in current OVF format to support new features. These new changes will be backwards-compatible with old OVF formats, but is it desirable for them to be forward compatible?
Regards, Mike
_______________________________________________ Engine-devel mailing list Engine-devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel
participants (2)
-
Livnat Peer -
Mike Kolesnik