From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Vincent Hanquez Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] libxl stubdom API cleanup Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 23:14:51 +0100 Message-ID: <4C3A425B.1080106@eu.citrix.com> References: <1278507656-7745-1-git-send-email-vincent.hanquez@eu.citrix.com> <4C35B3E1.2010106@eu.citrix.com> <1278598709.28432.589.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> <20100709081755.GC31695@whitby.uk.xensource.com> <4C36FD7A.1070303@eu.citrix.com> <20100709105101.GD31695@whitby.uk.xensource.com> <4C37027A.5030207@eu.citrix.com> <19511.22167.615318.444003@mariner.uk.xensource.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <19511.22167.615318.444003@mariner.uk.xensource.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Ian Jackson Cc: Tim Deegan , Ian Campbell , Xen Devel , Stefano Stabellini List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 09/07/10 18:04, Ian Jackson wrote: > Vincent Hanquez writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 0/3] libxl stubdom API cleanup"): >> I think that either is fine from my point of view; as long as I don't >> have to capture two very different semantics (starting a program | >> starting a domain) in one call. > > I still disagree. I think it would be better to hide this distinction > as much as possible. > > Your key motive seems to be some problem with the ocaml bindings. > Perhaps you could explain that in more detail ? This has nothing to do with the ocaml bindings, but this has to do with who is using those bindings (i.e. a fully featured toolstack). -- Vincent