From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=54035 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OqQQX-0003Gf-Nk for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 08:59:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OqQQW-0002Lb-Dc for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 08:59:01 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:14797) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OqQQW-0002LI-5E for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 08:59:00 -0400 Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 09:58:45 -0300 From: Luiz Capitulino Message-ID: <20100831095845.01290899@doriath> In-Reply-To: References: <51ec99ce2db02aeb34ec6683a76895b4a127057d.1282886503.git.amit.shah@redhat.com> <20100827092945.GC22361@redhat.com> <4C77B209.6050902@codemonkey.ws> <20100827125827.GD22361@redhat.com> <20100827111507.5278eba3@doriath> <4C77D2EB.1030306@codemonkey.ws> <20100827130856.79869770@doriath> <4C780BD5.4030700@codemonkey.ws> <20100827162413.0235bcd0@doriath> <4C781412.6080303@codemonkey.ws> <4C7BCE19.30206@codemonkey.ws> <4C7BD085.3020100@codemonkey.ws> <20100830131602.2e846845@doriath> <4C7BDBCF.3090502@codemonkey.ws> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: Should QMP be RPC to internal C interfaces? List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Markus Armbruster Cc: qemu list , agl@us.ibm.com, Amit Shah , Paolo Bonzini On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 14:48:51 +0200 Markus Armbruster wrote: > Anthony Liguori writes: > > [...] > > My position is that we aren't any closer to having compatible APIs > > then we were with the human monitor. I think we need to focus on > > compatibility and that that has to be solved as the QEMU interface > > level. I contend that it's not solvable at the QMP level. > > We've argued from day 0 every step along the way. And here we are, one > year later, still arguing about the very basics. > > There's a fundamental disagreement. I want to keep QMP the way it was > designed: supporting compatible evolution. You want to remake it from > the ground up as RPC to internal C interfaces. > > It seems exceedingly unlikely to me that we can agree on the wisdom of > such a remake. We can repeat and elaborate on our arguments for a > while, but let's face it: we want different things. Yes, that's the fundamental problem here. > I'm afraid I can't build you the thing you want. The best I can offer > is to step out of the way and let you build it. >