On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 12:01:16PM -0300, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 14:17:52 +0100
> Michal Privoznik <mpriv...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > On 28.02.2012 18:41, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
> > >> Hmm, I know Michal already sent a new version with my suggestions, but
> > >> > you're right, splitting out the commands simplified both the responses,
> > >> > and makes it easier to discover whether or not that information is
> > >> > available, since you can look for the command in guest-info before
> > >> > attempting it, rather than attempting it and then looking at the
> > >> > result.
> > >> >
> > >> > So maybe just something this?:
> > >> >
> > >> > { 'type': 'GuestNetworkInterface',
> > >> > 'data': { 'name': 'str',
> > >> > '*hardware-address': 'str',
> > >> > '*ip-addresses': ['GuestIpAddress'] } } }
> > >> >
> > >> > { 'command': 'guest-network-interfaces',
> > >> > 'returns': ['GuestNetworkInterface'] }
> > > Looks good to me, the only nitpick is that I think command names should be
> > > verbs.
> >
> > guest-get-network-interfaces?
>
> Works for me, but would be good to agree on a standard for it. I'll defer
> the decision to Michael, as he's the actual maintainer :)
I would prefer "guest-network-get-interfaces" since it's more in keeping
with the guest-file-* and guest-fsfreeze-* commands, but other than
that, looks good.
>
