On Tue, 02 Oct 2012 16:24:48 +0200 Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Il 02/10/2012 14:27, Luiz Capitulino ha scritto: > >>>> > >> for a port range, all because of the possibility of named ports; > >>>> > >> should > >>>> > >> '*to' be a 'str' if only for symmetry in the output? But it's > >>>> > >> bike-shedding, so I'll live with whatever works (that is, I'm not > >>>> > >> requesting a v3 on this patch). > >>> > > > >>> > > Would it be better if I changed 'to' to 'count'? > >> > > >> > That does look a little better: > >> > > >> > 'host':'localhost', 'port':'1000', 'count':2 > >> > > >> > for the 2-port range 1000-1001. But it's all the same information, so > >> > I'm not strongly tied to any particular representation, as long as > >> > libvirt can parse it when querying and produce it when starting NBD. > > Wouldn't it be cleaner to pass a list of port numbers? We could have: > > > > *port-list: [ 'int' ] > > *service: 'str' > > A list of ports doesn't work too well for say 5900-5999. I think the > port + count is the simplest. True, but consider making it a union then, so that we can have service as a string and port as an integer.
