From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1NZjzJ-0001WJ-7R
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 26 Jan 2010 06:53:41 -0500
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1NZjzE-0001U0-JV
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 26 Jan 2010 06:53:40 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=37247 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NZjzE-0001Tq-D8
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 26 Jan 2010 06:53:36 -0500
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:16122)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <lcapitulino@redhat.com>) id 1NZjzD-0005sF-O8
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 26 Jan 2010 06:53:36 -0500
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 09:53:25 -0200
From: Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC 00/11]: QMP feature negotiation support
Message-ID: <20100126095325.23011823@doriath>
In-Reply-To: <m33a1utfsr.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org>
References: <1264108180-3666-1-git-send-email-lcapitulino@redhat.com>
	<4B59E7C4.2050201@codemonkey.ws>
	<m33a1utfsr.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org>
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: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
Cc: aliguori@us.ibm.com, avi@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 15:33:40 +0100
Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com> wrote:

> Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws> writes:
> 
> > On 01/21/2010 03:09 PM, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
> >> """
> >> {"QMP": {"capabilities": ["async messages"]}}
> >>
> >> { "execute": "query-qmp-mode" }
> >> {"return": {"mode": "handshake"}}
> >>
> >> { "execute": "change", "arguments": { "device": "vnc", "target": "password", "arg": "1234" } }
> >> {"error": {"class": "QMPInvalidModeCommad", "desc": "The issued command is invalid in this mode", "data": {}}}
> >>
> >> { "execute": "async_msg_enable", "arguments": { "name": "STOP" } }
> >> {"return": {}}
> >>    
> >
> > Maybe:
> >
> > enable-capability "async messages"
> > disable-capability "async messages"
> >
> > I think that's a bit more obvious and it means that a client doesn't
> > have to maintain a mapping of features -> enable functions.  It's also
> > strange to use an enable command to disable something.
> 
> Agree on both counts.  But why two commands?  Why not simply "capability
> NAME VALUE"?  Works even for non-boolean capabilities.  I'm not
> predicting we'll need such capabilities.

 I slightly prefer two commands because that's probably how I'd
write it in a program (ie. two functions), also enabling/disabling
a group of features is a bit easier too, as we can use an array:

capability_enable [ "foo", "bar" ]

 Now, only one command is not terrible difficult, but we would
have to accept an array of objects, like:

[ { "name": "foo", "enabled": true }, { "name": "bar", "enabled": true } ]