From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:36664) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bDoMw-0006nM-Ht for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 17 Jun 2016 03:39:11 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bDoMr-0006EE-Jq for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 17 Jun 2016 03:39:09 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:55049) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bDoMr-0006E0-Dy for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 17 Jun 2016 03:39:05 -0400 From: Markus Armbruster References: <1463784024-17242-1-git-send-email-eblake@redhat.com> <1463784024-17242-2-git-send-email-eblake@redhat.com> <877fdsdk3v.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> <87mvmlyywi.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> <5762DFCD.3060004@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 09:39:02 +0200 In-Reply-To: <5762DFCD.3060004@redhat.com> (Eric Blake's message of "Thu, 16 Jun 2016 11:20:13 -0600") Message-ID: <87twgsmfhl.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v7 01/15] qapi: Consolidate object visitors List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Eric Blake Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Michael Roth Eric Blake writes: > On 06/16/2016 08:46 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote: >> Markus Armbruster writes: >> >>> Eric Blake writes: >>> >>>> Rather than having two separate visitor callbacks with items >>>> already broken out, pass the actual QAPISchemaObjectType object >>>> to the visitor. This lets the visitor access things like >>>> type.is_implicit() without needing another parameter, resolving >>>> a TODO from previous patches. >>>> >>>> For convenience and consistency, the 'name' and 'info' parameters >>>> are still provided, even though they are now redundant with >>>> 'typ.name' and 'typ.info'. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Eric Blake >>> >>> We've seen this one before :) >>> > >>> >>> End quote. Let's see how this series profits from the patch, and >>> whether we want to change the other visit methods as well for >>> consistency. >> >> Where is this used in the rest of the series? > > Hmm, I don't know that it actually makes a difference, unless we expand > its scope to also do the same things for commands and events (rather > than adding a 'box' parameter to those callbacks). > > And deferring it doesn't break things anywhere else in this series. I > guess we drop it. Let's keep it on the shelf for now.