From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MJRrk-0005U7-Jl for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 24 Jun 2009 08:46:16 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MJRrf-0005Sy-RK for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 24 Jun 2009 08:46:15 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=45144 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MJRrf-0005Sn-Db for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 24 Jun 2009 08:46:11 -0400 Received: from mx20.gnu.org ([199.232.41.8]:9273) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MJRre-0004Bd-Il for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 24 Jun 2009 08:46:10 -0400 Received: from mail-pz0-f185.google.com ([209.85.222.185]) by mx20.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MJRrd-00016S-SV for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 24 Jun 2009 08:46:10 -0400 Received: by pzk15 with SMTP id 15so547403pzk.4 for ; Wed, 24 Jun 2009 05:46:08 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4A42200C.6060600@codemonkey.ws> Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 07:46:04 -0500 From: Anthony Liguori MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 01/11] QMP: Introduce specification file References: <4A40FB11.8090100@redhat.com> <4A40FB26.2040702@us.ibm.com> <4A40FD1A.1040303@redhat.com> <4A40FE31.2010007@us.ibm.com> <4A40FFB0.2070905@redhat.com> <4A411FC5.7050701@us.ibm.com> <4A412339.5000109@redhat.com> <4A412659.1080803@us.ibm.com> <20090623220204.GA5612@snarc.org> <4A415C30.7030301@us.ibm.com> <20090624010108.GA6537@snarc.org> In-Reply-To: <20090624010108.GA6537@snarc.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Vincent Hanquez Cc: ehabkost@redhat.com, jan.kiszka@siemens.com, dlaor@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Luiz Capitulino , Avi Kivity Vincent Hanquez wrote: > On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 05:50:24PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote: > >>> this one is mentioned on the website and has been changed recently (may 2009): >>> >>> http://fara.cs.uni-potsdam.de/~jsg/json_parser/ >>> >>> >> That's not a jsonrpc library, that's just a json parser. >> > > but this is completly trivial at this point. jsonrpc is a json message put in a > certain way. > > now providing there was a maintained library out there, would you use it ? > or do you have more concerns that were unanswered ? There are two questions to resolve. The first is whether we should continue with the current direction (line-based protocol) or whether we should switch to an RPC. The second question is which RPC we should use. I'm not at all convinced that we should switch to an RPC mechanism in the first place. Perhaps someone could summarize the advantages of doing this because right now, I don't see many. With respect to RPC choice, if we did go that route, I'd be very concerned about using jsonrpc verses a more well established rpc. I would honestly prefer xml-rpc over jsonrpc. One reason to choose an RPC is based on the adoption of it. You want to use something that has a vibrant community with well established client libraries to make writing clients as easy as possible. Without an active jsonrpc C library, it's hard to argue that jsonrpc has that. xml-rpc certainly does. Regards, Anthony Liguori