Glenn Lagasse wrote: > Hey Joe, > > * Joseph J VLcek (Joseph.Vlcek at Sun.COM) wrote: > >> If I understand correctly you describe 3 scenarios: >> >> 1- Configure VM with a set of predefined option settings. >> 2- Provide for user supplied, manifest driven VM configuration >> 3- Allow the user to specify the identifier of a pre-configured VM in >> the manifest. >> >> If I got this correct, I think from the users perspective providing 1 >> and 3 would also provide for option 2. In that, if the user desires a >> specific configuration in the VM, they can configure the VM and specify >> it in the DC manifest. >> >> This would also allow us to avoid the unwieldy support of the many VM >> options in a manifest, while at the same time provide the user with a >> mechanism to utilize VM as they need. >> > > I think you're probably right. If we implement support for 1 and 3, > then users could create their own custom configured VM and supply it via > whatever mechanism we have for 3. The question is, are we happy with > that tradeoff? > > Any other thoughts out there? >
With #3, would we be any closer to being able to support virtualization software other than VBox, or are there other pieces in the process that are virt software specific? -ethan > Cheers, > >
