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

[Stefan Berger <stefanb@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Also I have a question regarding domain-0.
How will it be represented? Is it a VM - the fact that 'guest' is written
in the description of the VM class makes me think that this might not be
the case.
   

    Stefan

Ewan Mellor <ewan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote on 09/05/2006
08:40:59 AM:

> 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 requirethe
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