From: "Andreas Färber" <afaerber@suse.de>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>,
Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com>
Cc: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>,
qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Michael Roth <mdroth@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@redhat.com>,
Anthony Liguori <aliguori@amazon.com>,
Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] QOM vs QAPI for QMP APIs
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 09:33:50 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <530C556E.2020305@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <530C54B4.10102@redhat.com>
Am 25.02.2014 09:30, schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
> Il 25/02/2014 09:25, Markus Armbruster ha scritto:
>>> > Haven't we already done that in the past? For example, object-add
>>> > currently takes an unspecified dictionary of options, where you would
>>> > have to consult QOM documentation to learn what makes sense to send.
>> My question isn't about where the command details are documented, or
>> even whether they are documented. It's about ABI promises, or lack
>> thereof. The general promise for QMP is we treat it as stable ABI. If
>> we add QMP commands to examine and manipulate QOM, doesn't that move all
>> of QOM under the QMP ABI promise, unless we explicitly excempt it?
>
> We did already exempt it, in general. QOM is not declared stable.
Negative, QOM is stable in that properties may not change their type
incompatibly. Properties may be dropped/renamed, since that is
discoverable via qom-list, so it is less stable than the command line
interface.
Andreas
--
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer; HRB 16746 AG Nürnberg
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-02-25 8:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-02-21 9:16 [Qemu-devel] QOM vs QAPI for QMP APIs Stefan Hajnoczi
2014-02-21 14:29 ` Anthony Liguori
2014-02-21 14:37 ` Paolo Bonzini
2014-02-21 21:00 ` Eric Blake
2014-02-24 8:29 ` Markus Armbruster
2014-02-24 16:08 ` Eric Blake
2014-02-25 8:25 ` Markus Armbruster
2014-02-25 8:30 ` Andreas Färber
2014-02-25 8:30 ` Paolo Bonzini
2014-02-25 8:33 ` Andreas Färber [this message]
2014-02-21 14:32 ` Stefan Hajnoczi
2014-02-25 9:46 ` Kevin Wolf
2014-02-25 10:15 ` Stefan Hajnoczi
2014-02-25 10:47 ` Paolo Bonzini
2014-02-25 13:39 ` Kevin Wolf
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=530C556E.2020305@suse.de \
--to=afaerber@suse.de \
--cc=aliguori@amazon.com \
--cc=anthony@codemonkey.ws \
--cc=armbru@redhat.com \
--cc=eblake@redhat.com \
--cc=lcapitulino@redhat.com \
--cc=mdroth@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
--cc=stefanha@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.