On 12/03/2012 04:25 PM, Dan Kenigsberg wrote:
On Mon, Dec 03, 2012 at 04:35:34AM -0500, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Mark Wu wu...@linux.vnet.ibm.com
To: VDSM Project Development vdsm-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org
Cc: Alon Bar-Lev alo...@redhat.com, Dan Kenigsberg
Sorry, it's probably the fact that I don't have enough time to go into the code
but I still don't get what you are trying to do.
Having it in HTTP and XML-RPC is a bad idea but I imagine that the theoretical
solution doesn't depend on any of them.
Could you just show some pseudo code of a
On Mon, Dec 03, 2012 at 04:28:16PM +0200, Itamar Heim wrote:
On 12/03/2012 04:25 PM, Dan Kenigsberg wrote:
On Mon, Dec 03, 2012 at 04:35:34AM -0500, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Mark Wu wu...@linux.vnet.ibm.com
To: VDSM Project Development
HSM is not a package it's an application. Currently it and the rest of VDSM
share the same process but they use RPC to communicate. This is done so that
one day we can actually have them run as different processes.
HSM is not something you import, it's a daemon you communicate with.
-
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 05:59:09PM -0500, Saggi Mizrahi wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Adam Litke a...@us.ibm.com To: Saggi Mizrahi
smizr...@redhat.com Cc: engine-de...@linode01.ovirt.org, Dan Kenigsberg
dan...@redhat.com, Federico Simoncelli fsimo...@redhat.com, Ayal
Baron
On 12/03/2012 06:54 PM, Dan Kenigsberg wrote:
On Mon, Dec 03, 2012 at 04:28:16PM +0200, Itamar Heim wrote:
On 12/03/2012 04:25 PM, Dan Kenigsberg wrote:
On Mon, Dec 03, 2012 at 04:35:34AM -0500, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Mark Wu wu...@linux.vnet.ibm.com
To:
- Original Message -
From: Adam Litke a...@us.ibm.com
To: Saggi Mizrahi smizr...@redhat.com
Cc: engine-de...@linode01.ovirt.org, Dan Kenigsberg dan...@redhat.com,
Federico Simoncelli
fsimo...@redhat.com, Ayal Baron aba...@redhat.com,
vdsm-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org
Sent:
Currently the suggested scheme treats everything as instances and object have
methods.
This puts instancing as the responsibility of the API bindings.
I suggest changing it to the way json was designed with namespaces and methods.
For example instead for the api being:
vm = host.getVMsList()[0]
On Mon, Dec 03, 2012 at 03:57:42PM -0500, Saggi Mizrahi wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Adam Litke a...@us.ibm.com To: Saggi Mizrahi
smizr...@redhat.com Cc: engine-de...@linode01.ovirt.org, Dan Kenigsberg
dan...@redhat.com, Federico Simoncelli fsimo...@redhat.com, Ayal
Baron
So from what I gather the only thing that is bothering you is that storage
operations require a lot of IDs.
I get that, I hate that to. It doesn't change the point that it was designed
that way.
Even if you deem some use cases irrelevant it wouldn't change the fact that
this is how people use
10 matches
Mail list logo