On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 04:26:39PM -0400, Cole Robinson wrote:
On 10/19/2012 02:31 AM, Doug Goldstein wrote:
Currently consumers of libvirt's APIs must assume/attempt to define a
VM that uses spice, vnc, or sdl without knowing if the actual
hypervisor supports it. Obviously my discussion is
On 10/19/2012 02:31 AM, Doug Goldstein wrote:
Currently consumers of libvirt's APIs must assume/attempt to define a
VM that uses spice, vnc, or sdl without knowing if the actual
hypervisor supports it. Obviously my discussion is very QEMU oriented
but it would be good to leave expansion for
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 3:26 PM, Cole Robinson crobi...@redhat.com wrote:
On 10/19/2012 02:31 AM, Doug Goldstein wrote:
Currently consumers of libvirt's APIs must assume/attempt to define a
VM that uses spice, vnc, or sdl without knowing if the actual
hypervisor supports it. Obviously my
Currently consumers of libvirt's APIs must assume/attempt to define a
VM that uses spice, vnc, or sdl without knowing if the actual
hypervisor supports it. Obviously my discussion is very QEMU oriented
but it would be good to leave expansion for the future. I was thinking
that under the guest
On 19.10.2012 08:31, Doug Goldstein wrote:
Currently consumers of libvirt's APIs must assume/attempt to define a
VM that uses spice, vnc, or sdl without knowing if the actual
hypervisor supports it. Obviously my discussion is very QEMU oriented
but it would be good to leave expansion for the
