4:04 a.m.
--=_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'=
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=
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--
4:37 a.m.
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(a)ovirt.org
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel
4:38 a.m.
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(a)ovirt.org
> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel
4428
days inactive
4428
days old
2 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
Livnat Peer -
Mike Kolesnik