[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC 00/11]: QMP feature negotiation support
From: |
Luiz Capitulino |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC 00/11]: QMP feature negotiation support |
Date: |
Tue, 26 Jan 2010 14:21:58 -0200 |
On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 15:57:46 +0000
Jamie Lokier <address@hidden> wrote:
> Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 12:57:54PM +0000, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> > > Luiz Capitulino wrote:
> > > > capability_enable [ "foo", "bar" ]
> > > >
> > > > Now, only one command is not terrible difficult, but we would
> > > > have to accept an array of objects, like:
> > > >
> > > > [ { "name": "foo", "enabled": true }, { "name": "bar", "enabled": true
> > > > } ]
> > >
> > > That looks like XML-itis.
> > >
> > > Why not { "foo": true, "bar": true }?
> >
> > It depends on whether we think we're going to need to add more metadata
> > beyond just the enabled/disabled status. If we did want to add a further
> > item against foo & bar, then having the array of hashes makes that
> > extension easier becaue you add easily add more key/value pairs to
> > each.
>
> Sure, extensibility is good, and I personally don't care which
> format/function are used. Just wanted to question the padded
> structure, because sometimes that style is done unintentially.
>
> Look at the argument leading up here - Luiz says let's use separate,
> non-extensible enable/disable commands taking a list, because if it
> were a single command it'd be important to make it extensible. Does
> that make sense? I don't understand that reasoning.
I didn't consider extensibility in my first format, but we could also
have:
capability_enable [ { "name": "foo" }, { "name": "bar" } ]
> On that topic: In the regular monitor, commands are often extensible
> because they take command-line-style options, and you can always add
> more options. What about QMP - are QMP commands all future-extensible
> with options in a similar way?
Yes, command input is done through a json-object as does output.
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC 00/11]: QMP feature negotiation support, (continued)
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC 00/11]: QMP feature negotiation support, Markus Armbruster, 2010/01/22
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC 00/11]: QMP feature negotiation support, Anthony Liguori, 2010/01/22
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC 00/11]: QMP feature negotiation support, Markus Armbruster, 2010/01/25
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC 00/11]: QMP feature negotiation support, Luiz Capitulino, 2010/01/26
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC 00/11]: QMP feature negotiation support, Jamie Lokier, 2010/01/26
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC 00/11]: QMP feature negotiation support, Luiz Capitulino, 2010/01/26
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC 00/11]: QMP feature negotiation support, Daniel P. Berrange, 2010/01/26
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC 00/11]: QMP feature negotiation support, Jamie Lokier, 2010/01/26
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC 00/11]: QMP feature negotiation support,
Luiz Capitulino <=