[Libvirt-cim] [PATCH 1 of 2] Add calls into VSMigrationService to utilize new MigrationIndication provider

[Heidi Eckhart]

Jay Gagnon wrote:
> Dan Smith wrote:
>> However, as Jay points out, I think that the indication should be
>> typed per-platform as usual.  So, should we type the job to match,
>> since we'll need to persist the information for typing the indication
>> as well?
>>
>>   
> I'm no Heidi, but it seems like we should be prefixing this.  We 
> prefix every other class we create, and if somebody doesn't want to 
> deal with the Xen/KVM distinction they are welcome to subscribe 
> to/filter on/whatever they want the CIM super class and get both, right?
Sorry for my late jump into this discussion. I know, its already decided 
and only wanted to add my thought too. I also agree to prefixing the job 
with either Xen or KVM. This also means to update the mof files to 
directly derive these two classes from CIM_ConcreteJob - or maybe better 
- rename Virt_MigrationJob to CIM_MigrationJob as placeholder for the 
upcoming migration profile and derive from CIM_MigrationJob.
>
> As to where the prefix comes from, I think Kaitlin was on to something 
> with the ref that comes in from migrate_do, although I think it can be 
> even easier than she said.  We don't actually need to attach the 
> prefix to the migration_job structure; we're already attaching the 
> classname, so all we need is a call to class_prefix_name and we've got 
> a prefix.
>
Straightforward idea :).

-- 
Regards

Heidi Eckhart
Software Engineer
IBM Linux Technology Center - Open Hypervisor