Re: [Xen-API] New API Document and C Bindings

[Ewan Mellor <ewan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 04:13:10PM -0400, Stefan Berger wrote:

> Hello!
> 
> I had a look at the much more explicit enumeration of accessor functions
> for each one of the defined class. I am wondering what the rationale
> behind some of the set-ters is. For example the VIF class has members
> type, device, network, VM etc. Shouldn't these be marked RO_ins and have
> no associated set-ters after object creation? Can you actually change the
> type once the object has been created or move the VIF to another VM
> (set_VM)? Similar on VBD.

I'm not sure sure about Vif.network -- it might be possible to redirect the
VIF to a different network, though obviously that's going to require the guest
to figure that out too, so that one might be a little bit complicated.  The
rest though, yes, you're right, they should just be RO_ins -- that's a
mistake.

Ewan.

_______________________________________________
xen-api mailing list
xen-api@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-api