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

[Ronald Perez <ronpz@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Gareth S Bestor/Beaverton/IBM wrote on 09/15/2006
09:57:44 AM:

> certainly the CIM model supports the notion of 'recursive' virtualization
hosting. 
> However, I'm unclear how much of that we want to try and slap into
the API for 
> xend; in particular, are you thinking the host system will now running
multipe 
> xend's, in different Domains? 
> 
> - G
> 


You're correct to point out the differences between
the CIM modeling goals and the Xen API (thanks, at this early stage, I
often confuse the two).

I guess I'm saying that the Xen API should not preclude
such a direct mapping from model -> implementation. In practical terms,
this could include the existence of multiple xend's (or equivalent) on
a platform. This could be for the parent -> child scenario I mentioned
before, or it could just be a high availability issue (e.g., sort of a
dom0 hot back-up). Granted, there's a lot of clever engineering needed
to make any of these scenarios a reality :-)

So in summary, I tend to agree more with John's and
Dan's approach (but I'd like to see some details in regard to the capabilities
Dan mentions).

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