On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Serge Hallyn <serge.hal...@ubuntu.com> wrote: >> https://www.stgraber.org/2012/09/28/introducing-the-python-lxc-api/ > Well the API is our preferred way for external apps to interface with lxc. ... >> - libvirt ... >> I suppose it would be foolish to assume that a common api would >> always be better than having each high-level virtualization package >> roll its own lxc support, but... still... is it worth providing a ruby >> binding >> for the lxc api, and having vagrant use that? Or would that simply be extra >> overhead? > > I think that would definately be worth it. (Right now it's using > the lxc command line tools instead.) But someone who writes ruby > would have to export it :)
Likewise, libvirt has rolled their own (presumably C) binding to lxc stuff. It would be interesting to see how those lxc wrappers compare, and whether a consensus api that makes everybody happy would fall out of that comparison. (Wish I had time to hack.) - Dan ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_mar _______________________________________________ Lxc-users mailing list Lxc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lxc-users
