Re: Re: [RFC] Switching store to use domain id's for keys

[Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>]

On Mon, 2005-09-05 at 02:43 +0100, Steven Hand wrote:
> Well I certainly wouldn't want to confuse you by requiring you to master 
> more concepts... :-) 

You have a unique identifier which is already used by the tools and is
simple to understand.  You want to add another one, related in some way
to the first one, because it's *easy to generate*.

I'm speechless at this logic.

Your other benefits include: easier to canonically order (memcmp, of
course, being too hard), easier to deal with (memcpy too hard as well I
guess) and, my favorite benefit of all those you came up with: it makes
the store *harder* to read.

Must be that famous dry British sense of humor 8)

> However: I think we both /agree/ on the fact that domain ids should be 
> used to name things which are about domains (e.g. event channel ids 
> and backend domain ids, etc, etc). 
> 
> And i think we both /agree/ that within a domain's piece of xenstore, 
> that there's at least one 'name' which is a cluster-wide unique string
> and which persists across save/restore/migrate. 

Indeed, these were never in doubt.  You're arguing that we need *two*
names, and sorry, I just can't see it.

Rusty.
-- 
A bad analogy is like a leaky screwdriver -- Richard Braakman