From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:48309) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TeSsp-0002hB-Qo for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 30 Nov 2012 10:52:12 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TeSsl-0004Z3-H3 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 30 Nov 2012 10:52:07 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:64483) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TeSsl-0004Yy-7p for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 30 Nov 2012 10:52:03 -0500 Message-ID: <50B8D61E.7080808@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 16:51:58 +0100 From: Gerd Hoffmann MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1354281947-20227-1-git-send-email-marcandre.lureau@redhat.com> <50B8BB94.8070302@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/6] RFC: add "spiceport" chardev List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Marc-Andr=E9_Lureau?= Cc: spice-devel , Alon Levy , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Marc-Andr=E9_Lureau?= Hi, >> What is the use case? Any reason why the spice client can not (or >> should not) speak to ovirt directly? > > Ah, in fact, it's the main reason why I worked on this. Currently, the > Spice client has to communicate with ovirt via the browser, which is a pain > to deal with: it's a completely different route, it needs a running > browser, a compatible extension (xpi vs activex vs the rest not supported), > leading to duplicated work, license problems, regular breakage between > browser versions, hard to test, difficult to upgrade... Understood. > Instead, we are > investigating the use of a configuration file provided by ovirt portal for > setting up the client, and the dynamic interaction could take place either > via the propose Spice port, or directly via ovirt. > > Some of the dynamic ovirt functionality are interesting for direct clients, > like the "spice controller menu" (a customizable client UI menu, > virt-viewer and Boxes could benefit it). It may not be the best solution to > route the "ovirt/spice controller" through qemu host, but at least I wanted > to try that option. It could be that in the end, it is prefered that the > client just talk directly to ovirt, whatever fits best. I'd go for a direct connection. Going the indirect route via qemu probably isn't as bad as going indirectly via browser, but still. Unless there is a very good reason to use qemu as middle man I simply wouldn't do that. cheers, Gerd