Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH 00/15] QAPI Round 1 (core code generator) (v2)

[Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@redhat.com>]

On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 15:00:10 -0500
Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws> wrote:

> >> That said, I think we made a critical mistake in QMP that practically
> >> means that we need bindings for QMP.  There is no argument ordering.
> > I'm sorry? Critical mistake? Didn't _we_ consciously choose a dictionary
> > for this?
> 
> Yes, we did.  In fact, I'm fairly sure that Avi and/or I strongly 
> advocated it.
> 
> But hindsight is always 20/20 and if our goal is to have an API that 
> doesn't require special support in Python beyond a simple transport 
> class, using dictionaries and not allowing unnamed positional parameters 
> was a mistake.
> 
> But we makes lots of mistakes.  That's part of the development process.

IMO, what's happening here is that you want (or your focus is in) a
different thing.

Since the beginning we (Markus and I) have focused on having a flexible
wire interface. In its most part, this requirement came from Avi (please
Avi, correct me if I'm wrong), but of course that I agreed with it.

You've said many times that you don't value non-C consumers that much,
while our focus until today has been on higher level clients.

There's a clear conflict/contradiction here, and I don't feel I can keep
discussing this anymore. So, apart from trying to help stabilizing the QAPI,
the best I can do is to pass QMP maintenance over to you and you and Avi
(as QEMU maintainers) decide what to do from here on.