From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1MJTqf-0005Fm-1j
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 24 Jun 2009 10:53:17 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1MJTqa-00057K-9N
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 24 Jun 2009 10:53:16 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=43555 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MJTqa-00056x-0O
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 24 Jun 2009 10:53:12 -0400
Received: from smtp02.citrix.com ([66.165.176.63]:11084)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <Stefano.Stabellini@eu.citrix.com>)
	id 1MJTaY-0003Gb-8m
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 24 Jun 2009 10:36:38 -0400
Message-ID: <4A423B1B.8090302@eu.citrix.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 15:41:31 +0100
From: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>
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> <4A42200C.6060600@codemonkey.ws>
In-Reply-To: <4A42200C.6060600@codemonkey.ws>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
Cc: "ehabkost@redhat.com" <ehabkost@redhat.com>, "jan.kiszka@siemens.com" <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>, "dlaor@redhat.com" <dlaor@redhat.com>, "qemu-devel@nongnu.org" <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>, Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@redhat.com>, Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>, Vincent Hanquez <tab@snarc.org>

Anthony Liguori wrote:

> 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.
> 

Using an IDL it would be easier to generate boilerplate code for
different languages, easier to document and evolve the interface.
If the rpc library is good enough we would get marshalling, data
transport, rendezvous, introspection and security already solved
for us.