From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MJVHJ-0007R3-MH for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 24 Jun 2009 12:24:53 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MJVHF-0007N4-PH for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 24 Jun 2009 12:24:53 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=41892 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MJVHF-0007Mw-IP for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 24 Jun 2009 12:24:49 -0400 Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:57992) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MJVHF-0007Bs-4F for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 24 Jun 2009 12:24:49 -0400 Message-ID: <4A42538A.9000807@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 19:25:46 +0300 From: Avi Kivity MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 01/11] QMP: Introduce specification file References: <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> <4A422592.2000307@redhat.com> <20090624162207.GD14121@shareable.org> In-Reply-To: <20090624162207.GD14121@shareable.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: Jamie Lokier Cc: ehabkost@redhat.com, jan.kiszka@siemens.com, dlaor@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Luiz Capitulino , Vincent Hanquez On 06/24/2009 07:22 PM, Jamie Lokier wrote: > Avi Kivity wrote: > >>> 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. >>> >> I agree xml-rpc is a more rational choice than jsonrpc, but I cannot >> find it in my heart to say something nice about xml. Additionally, XML >> parsers are pretty heavy. >> > > I'm not defending XML here, but: > > You can code a minimal XML parser in straight C quite easily, One of the points of using an existing RPC implementation is not to have to code it up. > if it's a restricted subset. > You can't control what's coming in from the other side. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function