Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3] ui/cocoa.m: Add Mount image file menu item

[Programmingkid]

On Sep 25, 2015, at 11:42 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:

> Programmingkid <address@hidden> writes:
> 
>> On Sep 24, 2015, at 2:57 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> 
>>> Programmingkid <address@hidden> writes:
>>> 
>>>> On Sep 23, 2015, at 4:35 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On 17 September 2015 at 21:17, Programmingkid
>>>>> <address@hidden> wrote:
>>>>>> Add "Mount Image File..." and a "Eject Image File" menu items to
>>>>>> cocoa interface. This patch makes sharing files between the
>>>>>> host and the guest user-friendly.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The "Mount Image File..." menu item displays a dialog box having the
>>>>>> user pick an image file to use in QEMU. The image file is setup as
>>>>>> a USB flash drive. The user can do the equivalent of removing the
>>>>>> flash drive by selecting the file in the "Eject Image File" submenu.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: John Arbuckle <address@hidden>
>>>>> 
>>>>> I've thought a bit about this, and I really don't think this sort
>>>>> of feature should be part of QEMU itself. Our general design for
>>>>> how QEMU does this sort of thing is that an external program
>>>>> (virt-manager, for instance) is responsible for providing most
>>>>> of the UI conveniences the user wants, and QEMU's "ui" code is
>>>>> a fairly simple minimum-functionality affair. I agree with Markus
>>>>> that this separation of concerns has generally worked OK for us.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I don't think OSX should be an exception to this design model:
>>>>> (a) being an odd special case is never a good idea
>>>>> (b) as a practical matter, I'm the only person who really reviews
>>>>> OSX patches, and I don't have either the time nor the UI or OSX
>>>>> expertise to deal with maintaining what will effectively be a
>>>>> vm-manager grafted onto the side of QEMU
>>>>> 
>>>>> So I think your efforts would be better spent in either porting
>>>>> one of the Linux frontends like libvirt/virt-manager, or in
>>>>> writing a custom OSX specific frontend.
>>>> 
>>>> I understand that time is precious. It is one of those things
>>>> that we only have a finite amount of. Every user can agree
>>>> to that. This patch was pretty hairy looking with the QDict
>>>> and other unfamiliar code. With that said I'm not ready to
>>>> give up on this patch. It is a huge time saver for the user.
>>>> Without it, the user would need to spend a lot of time
>>>> investigating documentation. What's worse is the user
>>>> would have to type out full paths to files they need. This
>>>> would definitely be error prone and frustrating.
>>> 
>>> Nobody is challenging the idea that many users appreciate a GUI.
>>> 
>>> What we've been trying to tell you is where in this software layer cake
>>> the GUI should be.  In Peter's words, "our general design for how QEMU
>>> does this sort of thing is that an external program (virt-manager, for
>>> instance) is responsible for providing most of the UI conveniences".
>> 
>> That is easy for you to say. Linux already has virt-manager. Mac OS X 
>> doesn't. 
>> Expecting someone to just go and port another program to Mac OS X is 
>> unreasonable. The amount of time and energy it would take to do so
>> would make it hard. 
> 
> On the purely technical level, it may or may not be harder than mashing
> everything into QEMU.
> 
> On the getting-patches-merged level, mashing everything into QEMU is a
> non-starter, as Peter and I have told you multiple times.
> 
> That tips the balance somewhat.
> 
>>>> This patch can definitely be more simplified. QMP
>>>> commands could be used in place of C functions. 
>>>> This would reduce the patch size greatly. 
>>> 
>>> You're quite welcome to use QMP the way it wants to be used: as an
>>> external interface.
>>> 
>>> Abusing it as internal interface won't fly.
>> 
>> The QMP interface is primarily there to help a gui interact with QEMU. That
>> is what I intend to use it for.
> 
> Nope, the QMP interface's purpose is to let other programs interact with
> QEMU.
> 
> You're free to use it for other purposes to your heart's content.  Just
> don't count on patches to be merged when they do things maintainers have
> told you not to do :)

I did do as you said and used C functions in place of the original hmp 
commands. 
I guess there never was any hope for this patch. :(