From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:60690) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bIGIh-0003Qz-OR for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 29 Jun 2016 10:17:12 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bIGId-0003tO-Fh for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 29 Jun 2016 10:17:10 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:60366) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bIGId-0003tJ-99 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 29 Jun 2016 10:17:07 -0400 Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 15:17:01 +0100 From: "Daniel P. Berrange" Message-ID: <20160629141701.GR4221@redhat.com> Reply-To: "Daniel P. Berrange" References: <1465979147-1993-1-git-send-email-prasanna.kalever@redhat.com> <20160629141131.GA17242@localhost.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160629141131.GA17242@localhost.localdomain> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v17 0/4][WIP] block/gluster: add support for multiple gluster servers List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Jeff Cody Cc: Prasanna Kumar Kalever , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, kwolf@redhat.com, eblake@redhat.com, pkrempa@redhat.com, bharata@linux.vnet.ibm.com, rtalur@redhat.com, deepakcs@redhat.com, armbru@redhat.com On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 10:11:31AM -0400, Jeff Cody wrote: > On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 01:55:43PM +0530, Prasanna Kumar Kalever wrote: > > This version of patches are rebased on master branch. > > > > Prasanna Kumar Kalever (4): > > block/gluster: rename [server, volname, image] -> [host, volume, path] > > block/gluster: code cleanup > > block/gluster: using new qapi schema > > block/gluster: add support for multiple gluster servers > > > > I think the main criticism with this series revolves around the interface, > and the overloading of the server hosts fields when using tcp and unix > sockets, etc. The idea of using flat unions for the API was floated. > > Eric, does this criticism still stand, from libvirt's perspective? Or are > you comfortable enough with the current interface that I can go ahead and > take this series in through my tree? Just from a general QAPI design POV I think this overloading is undesirable. We cared enough about not doing this overloading in the past that we created SocketAddress which is a union of InetSocketAddress and UnixSocketAddress. Given this historical best practice, I don't think we should be overloading "host" for unix socket path. Regards, Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|