Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [libvirt] Supporting hypervisor specific APIs in libvirt

[Paul Brook]

> > I think there is a serious divergence of approach there, instanciating
> > API stating 'we are gonna deprecate them sooner or later' tell the
> > application developper 'my time is more important than yours' and not
> > really something I like to carry to the API users.
> > The main goal of libvirt remains to provide APIs needed to unify the
> > development of the virtualization layers. Having APIs which makes
> > sense only for one or 2 virtualization engines is not a problem in
> > itself, it just raises questions about the actual semantic of that API.
> > If that semantic is sound, then I see no reason to not add it, really
> > and we actually often do.
> 
> Yeah, but the problem we're facing is, I want there to be an API added
> to the management layer as part of the feature commit in qemu.  If there
> has to be a discussion and decisions about how to model the API, it's
> not going to be successful.

I thought the monitor protocol *was* our API. If not, why not?

Paul