Thanks for your detailed response...
On Mon, Dec 03, 2012 at 09:26:34PM -0500, Saggi Mizrahi wrote:
> So from what I gather the only thing that is bothering you is that storage
> operations require a lot of IDs. I get that, I hate that to. It doesn't
> change the point that it was designed that w
So from what I gather the only thing that is bothering you is that storage
operations require a lot of IDs.
I get that, I hate that to. It doesn't change the point that it was designed
that way.
Even if you deem some use cases irrelevant it wouldn't change the fact that
this is how people use it
On Mon, Dec 03, 2012 at 04:34:28PM -0500, Saggi Mizrahi wrote:
> Currently the suggested scheme treats everything as instances and object have
> methods.
> This puts instancing as the responsibility of the API bindings.
> I suggest changing it to the way json was designed with namespaces and
> me
Currently the suggested scheme treats everything as instances and object have
methods.
This puts instancing as the responsibility of the API bindings.
I suggest changing it to the way json was designed with namespaces and methods.
For example instead for the api being:
vm = host.getVMsList()[0]
