On 03/24/2010 03:12 PM, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 21:49:45 +0200
Avi Kivity<a...@redhat.com> wrote:
On 03/24/2010 06:42 PM, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 12:42:16 +0200
Avi Kivity<a...@redhat.com> wrote:
So, at best qemud is a toy for people who are annoyed by libvirt.
Is the reason for doing this in qemu because libvirt is annoying?
Mostly.
I don't see
how adding yet another layer/daemon is going to improve ours and user's life
(the same applies for libqemu).
libvirt becomes optional.
I think it should only be optional if all you want is to run a single VM
in this case what seems to be missing on our side is a _real_ GUI, bundled
with QEMU potentially written in a high-level language.
That's a separate problem.
Then we make virt-manager optional and this is good because we can sync
features way faster and we don't have to care about _managing_ several
VMs, our world in terms of usability and maintainability is about one VM.
IMVHO, everything else should be done by third-party tools like libvirt,
we just provide the means for it.
We need to have a common management interface for third party tools.
libvirt cannot be that today because of the fact that it doesn't support
all of our features. What we need to figure out is how we can work with
the libvirt team to fix this.
So far, a libqemu.so with a flexible transport that could be used
directly by a libvirt user (ala cairo/gdk type interactions) seems like
the best solution to me.
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
