Quoting Dan Kegel (d...@kegel.com): > On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Serge Hallyn <serge.hal...@ubuntu.com> wrote: > >> https://www.stgraber.org/2012/09/28/introducing-the-python-lxc-api/ > > Well the API is our preferred way for external apps to interface with lxc. > ... > >> - libvirt > ... > >> I suppose it would be foolish to assume that a common api would > >> always be better than having each high-level virtualization package > >> roll its own lxc support, but... still... is it worth providing a ruby > >> binding > >> for the lxc api, and having vagrant use that? Or would that simply be > >> extra > >> overhead? > > > > I think that would definately be worth it. (Right now it's using > > the lxc command line tools instead.) But someone who writes ruby > > would have to export it :) > > Likewise, libvirt has rolled their own (presumably C) binding to lxc stuff. > > It would be interesting to see how those lxc wrappers compare, > and whether a consensus api that makes everybody happy > would fall out of that comparison. (Wish I had time to hack.)
You may have noticed in Stéphane 1.0 roadmap there is a libvirt driver based on our api. That was actually one of the many motivating factors for the api. -serge ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_mar _______________________________________________ Lxc-users mailing list Lxc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lxc-users
