From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=33575 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Q0aOC-0008PT-Sk for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 18 Mar 2011 10:10:53 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Q0aOB-0000jO-Lu for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 18 Mar 2011 10:10:52 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:43544) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Q0aOB-0000j9-Dn for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 18 Mar 2011 10:10:51 -0400 Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 11:10:44 -0300 From: Luiz Capitulino Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH 00/15] QAPI Round 1 (core code generator) (v2) Message-ID: <20110318111044.6daa792d@doriath> In-Reply-To: <4D8116CA.60207@codemonkey.ws> References: <1299884745-521-1-git-send-email-aliguori@us.ibm.com> <20110316113428.21c599a3@doriath> <4D80DE65.5080800@codemonkey.ws> <20110316150918.718b425a@doriath> <4D810252.9080300@codemonkey.ws> <20110316162703.21f03bd8@doriath> <4D8116CA.60207@codemonkey.ws> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Anthony Liguori Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Avi Kivity , Markus Armbruster , Adam Litke On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 15:00:10 -0500 Anthony Liguori wrote: > >> That said, I think we made a critical mistake in QMP that practically > >> means that we need bindings for QMP. There is no argument ordering. > > I'm sorry? Critical mistake? Didn't _we_ consciously choose a dictionary > > for this? > > Yes, we did. In fact, I'm fairly sure that Avi and/or I strongly > advocated it. > > But hindsight is always 20/20 and if our goal is to have an API that > doesn't require special support in Python beyond a simple transport > class, using dictionaries and not allowing unnamed positional parameters > was a mistake. > > But we makes lots of mistakes. That's part of the development process. IMO, what's happening here is that you want (or your focus is in) a different thing. Since the beginning we (Markus and I) have focused on having a flexible wire interface. In its most part, this requirement came from Avi (please Avi, correct me if I'm wrong), but of course that I agreed with it. You've said many times that you don't value non-C consumers that much, while our focus until today has been on higher level clients. There's a clear conflict/contradiction here, and I don't feel I can keep discussing this anymore. So, apart from trying to help stabilizing the QAPI, the best I can do is to pass QMP maintenance over to you and you and Avi (as QEMU maintainers) decide what to do from here on.