Re: KVM call for agenda for 2020-10-06

["Daniel P. Berrangé" <berrange@redhat.com>]

On Wed, Oct 07, 2020 at 07:50:20PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 06/10/20 20:21, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> >     * Does command-line order matter?
> >         * Two options: allow any order OR left-to-right ordering
> >         * Andrea Bolognani: Most users expect left-to-right ordering,
> > why allow any order?
> >         * Eduardo Habkost: Can we enforce left-to-right ordering or do
> > we need to follow the deprecation process?
> >         * Daniel Berrange: Solve compability by introducing new
> > binaries without the burden of backwards compability
> 
> I think "new binaries" shouldn't even have a command line; all
> configuration should happen through QMP commands.  Those are naturally
> time-ordered, which is equivalent to left-to-right, and therefore the
> question is sidestepped.  Perhaps even having a command line in
> qemu-storage-daemon was a mistake.

Non-interactive configuration is a nice property for simpler integration
use cases. eg launching from the shell is tedious with QMP compared to
CLI args.

This could be addressed though by having a configuration file to load
config from, where the config entries can be mapped 1-1 onto QMP commands,
essentially making the config file a non-interactive QMP.

> The big question to me is whether the configuration should be
> QAPI-based, that is based on QAPI structs, or QMP-based.  If the latter,
> "object-add" (and to a lesser extent "device-add") are fine mechanisms
> for configuration.  There is still need for better QOM introspection,
> but it would be much simpler than doing QOM object creation via QAPI
> struct, if at all possible.



Regards,
Daniel
-- 
|: https://berrange.com      -o-    https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org         -o-            https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org    -o-    https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|