From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1Maby6-0004NH-8N
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 10 Aug 2009 16:59:46 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1Maby1-00049I-66
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 10 Aug 2009 16:59:45 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=45819 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Maby0-00048q-Vw
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 10 Aug 2009 16:59:41 -0400
Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:51744)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <lcapitulino@redhat.com>) id 1Maby0-0004TM-AN
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 10 Aug 2009 16:59:40 -0400
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 17:59:29 -0300
From: Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v1 00/25] Monitor handlers new structure
	phase 1
Message-ID: <20090810175929.43d1fe85@doriath>
In-Reply-To: <4A8086DD.6090206@us.ibm.com>
References: <1249318642-19324-1-git-send-email-lcapitulino@redhat.com>
	<4A80803F.4010303@codemonkey.ws> <20090810174213.616e6c09@doriath>
	<4A8086DD.6090206@us.ibm.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Anthony Liguori <aliguori@us.ibm.com>
Cc: jan.kiszka@siemens.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, avi@redhat.com

On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 15:45:17 -0500
Anthony Liguori <aliguori@us.ibm.com> wrote:

> Luiz Capitulino wrote:
> >> I think you may be waiting to introduce QObject, but in the interim, you 
> >> should at least introduce a boxed type and have proper accessors in 
> >> qdict.  For instance, instead of:
> >>
> >> int f = (long)qdict_get(foo, "bar");
> >>
> >> It should be:
> >>
> >> int f = qdict_get_int(foo, "bar");
> >>     
> >
> >  It will be provided by the QObject patches I'm already
> > working on, why can't we wait for it?
> >   
> 
> Lack of type safety is a rather fundamental flaw.  It's hard to judge 
> whether qdict is correct because it's fundamentally flawed in it's 
> current form.

 It's as simple as the current code.

> Maybe you should take the opposite approach?  Introduce QObject along 
> with a type-safe qdict and then do the monitor command conversion.

 This is an option, although will make the series larger and harder
to review.

> I feel like merging qdict as is would be a regression because it makes 
> the monitor commands even less type safe then they were before.

 I have the impression it's the same thing, but at this point
it wouldn't be too difficult for me to move QObject patches to
the beginning of the series.