From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Vincent, Pradeep" Subject: Re: New feature support - xl or xm ? Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2010 10:30:40 -0700 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2115341636==" Return-path: In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Stefano Stabellini Cc: Ian, "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" , Jackson , Dulloor List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org --===============2115341636== Content-Language: en Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_C8351DD017C41pradeepvamazoncom_" --_000_C8351DD017C41pradeepvamazoncom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thanks Stefano. That helps. On 6/9/10 8:09 AM, "Stefano Stabellini" = wrote: On Wed, 9 Jun 2010, Vincent, Pradeep wrote: > > Also, was there a compelling reason to move away from the 'xm' interface.= Obviously 'xm' is both an API and an > implementation and I certainly see the reasons to move away from libxengu= est/xend/xm implementation in favor of libxl. But > was there a reason to opt for a new 'xl' API as opposed change the implem= entation behind the established 'xm' API. > > Did the 'xm' interface (excluding the implementation) fall short of servi= ng the needs ? > We like the 'xm' CLI, in fact we are trying our best to provide a compatible command line interface with 'xl'. Ideally you'll be able to symlink xl to xm and everything will still work. If you find any problem with command line incompatibilities please let us know, and we'll fix them. On the other hand if you are speaking about the XML-RPC interface provided by xend, that is a totally different matter. --_000_C8351DD017C41pradeepvamazoncom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: [Xen-devel] New feature support - xl or xm ? Thanks Stefano. That helps.


On 6/9/10 8:09 AM, "Stefano Stabellini" <stefano.stabellini@eu= .citrix.com> wrote:

On Wed, 9 Jun 2010,= Vincent, Pradeep wrote:
>
> Also, was there a compelling reason to move away from the ‘xm= 217; interface. Obviously ‘xm’ is both an API and an
> implementation and I certainly see the reasons to move away from libxe= nguest/xend/xm implementation in favor of libxl. But
> was there a reason to opt for a new ‘xl’ API as opposed ch= ange the implementation behind the established ‘xm’ API.
>
> Did the ‘xm’ interface (excluding the implementation) fall= short of serving the needs ?
>

We like the 'xm' CLI, in fact we are trying our best to provide a
compatible command line interface with 'xl'.
Ideally you'll be able to symlink xl to xm and everything will still
work. If you find any problem with command line incompatibilities please let us know, and we'll fix them.

On the other hand if you are speaking about the XML-RPC interface
provided by xend, that is a totally different matter.

--_000_C8351DD017C41pradeepvamazoncom_-- --===============2115341636== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel --===============2115341636==--