From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1NZoBG-0006vX-E6
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 26 Jan 2010 11:22:18 -0500
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1NZoBB-0006qE-C8
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 26 Jan 2010 11:22:17 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=46778 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NZoBB-0006pt-0Q
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 26 Jan 2010 11:22:13 -0500
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:60377)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <lcapitulino@redhat.com>) id 1NZoBA-0005lF-Ep
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 26 Jan 2010 11:22:12 -0500
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 14:21:58 -0200
From: Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC 00/11]: QMP feature negotiation support
Message-ID: <20100126142158.751fba75@doriath>
In-Reply-To: <20100126155746.GA10002@shareable.org>
References: <1264108180-3666-1-git-send-email-lcapitulino@redhat.com>
	<4B59E7C4.2050201@codemonkey.ws>
	<m33a1utfsr.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org>
	<20100126095325.23011823@doriath>
	<20100126125754.GA9362@shareable.org>
	<20100126142912.GN5366@redhat.com>
	<20100126155746.GA10002@shareable.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: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
Cc: aliguori@us.ibm.com, avi@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>

On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 15:57:46 +0000
Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org> wrote:

> Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 12:57:54PM +0000, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> > > Luiz Capitulino wrote:
> > > > 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 } ]
> > > 
> > > That looks like XML-itis.
> > > 
> > > Why not { "foo": true, "bar": true }?
> > 
> > It depends on whether we think we're going to need to add more metadata
> > beyond just the enabled/disabled status. If we did want to add a further
> > item against foo & bar, then having the array of hashes makes that 
> > extension easier becaue you add easily add more key/value pairs to
> > each.
> 
> Sure, extensibility is good, and I personally don't care which
> format/function are used.  Just wanted to question the padded
> structure, because sometimes that style is done unintentially.
> 
> Look at the argument leading up here - Luiz says let's use separate,
> non-extensible enable/disable commands taking a list, because if it
> were a single command it'd be important to make it extensible.  Does
> that make sense?  I don't understand that reasoning.

 I didn't consider extensibility in my first format, but we could also
have:

capability_enable [ { "name": "foo" }, { "name": "bar" } ]

> On that topic: In the regular monitor, commands are often extensible
> because they take command-line-style options, and you can always add
> more options.  What about QMP - are QMP commands all future-extensible
> with options in a similar way?

 Yes, command input is done through a json-object as does output.