Re: [PATCH 2/2] kernel-shark-qt: Add Json I/O for filter configurations.

["Yordan Karadzhov (VMware)" <y.karadz@gmail.com>]

On  8.08.2018 15:32, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Aug 2018 14:48:10 +0300
> "Yordan Karadzhov (VMware)" <y.karadz@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Steven,
>>
>> On  8.08.2018 04:21, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>>>> /**
>>>> + * @brief Create an empty Json document and set its type description.
>>>> + *
>>>> + * @param type: String describing the type of the document,
>>>> + *		e.g. "kshark.record.config" or "kshark.filter.config".
>>>> + *
>>>> + * @returns json_object instance. Use json_object_put() to free the object.
>>> I wonder if we should add handlers like:
>>>
>>> 	kshark_config_free(struct json_object *jobj);
>>>
>>> and call that instead? Perhaps even create our own object that may
>>> contain extra state that the json object does not, and return that?
>>>
>>>    
>>
>> What do we gain by doing it this way?
>>
> 
>     CONTROL!!!!! :-) :-)
> 
> 
> But seriously, if we had our own abstraction for the json objects, we
> could carry extra data along with it if need be. In fact, we could
> abstract out completely that we use json. We could just add our own
> wrappers, and if some day in the future, something else comes along
> that's better than json, we could switch to that.
> 

OK will try to implement a wrapper and abstract out the use json.

Thanks!
Yordan


> I'm not strongly committed to doing this abstraction, but I want us to
> think about it before we commit to anything. Like I said, forward
> compatibility is the difficult part. I don't know exactly how this is
> all going to end up being used, but I like to keep my options open.
> 
> -- Steve
>