Mailing List Archive

On Fri, Sep 15, 2006 at 10:13:45AM -0400, Ronald Perez wrote:

> I don't think Dan and John are as far apart as Ewan's first proposal and
> Dan's/John's proposals. I think Dan and John are saying the same thing,
> but probably in two different languages / from two different perspectives.

I believe so. In particular the modelling of "capabilities" is fine by me, and
I think it makes sense.

regards
john

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

On Fri, Sep 15, 2006 at 04:00:07PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:

> > Thanks. So if John's "class hierarchy" were really a recursive
> > representation (as mentioned previously), that would be equivalent to your
> > "overlapping sets"? e.g., host_CPUs == VCPUs on a domU.
>
> No they are not equivalent. There are scenarios you can represent with
> overlapping sets which you can't represent in a hierarchy. Consider
> three sets A, B, C. A overlaps with B, B overlaps with C, and C overlaps
> with A - there's no way to represent that as a hierarchy - hierarchies
> can only represent directed, a-cyclic graphs - overlapping sets are
> non-directional cyclic graphs.

Well, that wasn't really what I meant. Merely that there's a general notion of
domain, then some further specification. And a set of flags meets this model
just fine, it's not necessary to explicitly model class relationships in the
API.

regards
john

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