[xen-tools] Re: difference between xen-shell and argo

[Steve Kemp]

On Sun, Dec 03, 2006 at 01:21:28AM +0100, Henning Sprang wrote:

> >Basically, argo acts more like a library - very useful but you need 
> >something
> >to interface with it. Xen-shell is an application.
> 
> Hmm, maybe I start getting it - is this in the sense that argo
> basically has no function of it's own but is mainly a the protocol
> that is documented on the website?

  Well again, both yes and no.  Yes the point of Argo is the
 protocol which it uses and which is documented.

  However there are three simple clients supplied with it
 which allow domU to be controlled and manipulated in a simple
 fashion (start/stop/uptime/network stats display):

   * Perl GUI.
   * PHP GUI.
   * Console GUI.

> E.G. other than I thought that argo implements some stuff that
> xen.shell also already has, it is merely using other tools, for
> example, argo would even actually call xen-shell for all the
> functionality it provides?

  Both have a part that runs locally, and both those local
 parts run "system( "xm cmd args..");" at some point.  In the
 case of the xen-shell this is the result of a simple input parser
 as found in a standard shell.  In the case of Argo it is the
 server component reacting to a network-protocol containing
 protocol commands to execute.

  running ("system xen-shell foo") isn't something that is
 required or supported.  (Although maybe it should be 
 so that "xen-shell shutdown" == xm shutdown $LOGIN"?)

> But then - why argo, and what's the difference between argo, xend
> xml-rpc and libvirt?

  xen-shell == single host.
  argo should do network broadcasts and the GUI should be flexible
 enough to display all broadcast dom0 machines and all their
 hosted domU.  It should also be reasonably well documented and
 the server should be separately installable so that users can
 write their own clients.

Steve
-- 
http://www.steve.org.uk/