[et-mgmt-tools] VM images

[Daniel P. Berrange]

On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 11:31:24AM -0700, David Lutterkort wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-06-27 at 10:51 +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> > 	I don't imagine this multi-VM appliance thing will ever work out and be
> > useful, but if we did want to do that surely we'd have multiple 
> 
> That way, the relative position of existing tags doesn't change, though
> it's really not much of a difference. (Though I find having all the
> storage in one place a little cleaner)

So <storage> is a single top level grouping for multiple <disk> elements,
while <machine> and <network> are multiple top level elements with no
grouping.

For consistentency perhaps we should either

  - Kill <storage> and have <disk> at top level

Or

  - Add <machines>  and <networks>  for grouping the multiple machine
    and network elements.

BTW, I thing <machine> is better called <domain> for consistency with the
libvirt naming of <domain>. The <network> and <disk> elements already 
match the libvirt terminology.

Regards,
Dan.
-- 
|=- Red Hat, Engineering, Emerging Technologies, Boston.  +1 978 392 2496 -=|
|=-           Perl modules: http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/              -=|
|=-               Projects: http://freshmeat.net/~danielpb/               -=|
|=-  GnuPG: 7D3B9505   F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505  -=|