From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1NZnnh-0004qJ-HX
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 26 Jan 2010 10:57:57 -0500
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1NZnnc-0004dq-Bg
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 26 Jan 2010 10:57:56 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=58373 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NZnnc-0004dP-5x
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 26 Jan 2010 10:57:52 -0500
Received: from mail2.shareable.org ([80.68.89.115]:47927)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32)
	(Exim 4.60) (envelope-from <jamie@shareable.org>) id 1NZnnb-0008T1-Ow
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 26 Jan 2010 10:57:51 -0500
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 15:57:46 +0000
From: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC 00/11]: QMP feature negotiation support
Message-ID: <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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20100126142912.GN5366@redhat.com>
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: "Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange@redhat.com>
Cc: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>, aliguori@us.ibm.com, avi@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@redhat.com>

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.

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?

-- Jamie

(ps. XML-itis: a tendancy to write
<element><name>tag</name><attribute><attr-name>name</attr-name><attr-value>value</attr-value></attribute></element>,
when <tag name=value/> would do).