Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: Storing command line options in images

[Avi Kivity <avi-atKUWr5tajBWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org>]

Anthony Liguori wrote:
> Avi Kivity wrote:
>>> This is a big effort but a config file is the right long term solution.
>>>
>>>     
>>
>> For which use case? management-full or management-less?
>>   
>
> Both.  A config file will be useful not just for expressing the 
> functionality we have today, but also for describing the guest's 
> environment in greater detail.  For instance, if you want to support a 
> bunch of different kinds of embedded systems, it would be very nice if 
> the machine description was a config file instead of hard coded such 
> that it was easy to tweak what hardware was present for the particular 
> embedded system.
>

Maybe I'm dense today.  Which use case is this?

>> A managed system will want to supply arguments out of a central 
>> database.  For a management-less use case, the config file is a hassle.
>>   
>
> As long as all options are still settable via command line (or stdio), 
> then it's not at all a hassle.
>

Yes.  But if you don't plan to use it, why implement it?

My feeling is that config files are outdated.  When used with a gui, you 
end up writing silly parsers and stuff and still wrecking things 
horribly when the the gui writer's expectations don't match reality.  
When used without a gui, they increase the amount of details one has to 
remember (where's that config file? I renamed my image, did I remember 
to update the config file?).  They also make upgrading more difficult.




-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log files to find problems?  Stop.
Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >>  http://get.splunk.com/