From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=36387 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OqQWe-0005tu-8f for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 09:05:24 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OqQWZ-0003ji-Jr for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 09:05:19 -0400 Received: from mail-yx0-f173.google.com ([209.85.213.173]:38359) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OqQWZ-0003jc-Hf for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 09:05:15 -0400 Received: by yxs7 with SMTP id 7so1030602yxs.4 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 06:05:15 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4C7CFE1A.3000504@codemonkey.ws> Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 08:05:30 -0500 From: Anthony Liguori MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <51ec99ce2db02aeb34ec6683a76895b4a127057d.1282886503.git.amit.shah@redhat.com> <20100827092945.GC22361@redhat.com> <4C77B209.6050902@codemonkey.ws> <20100827125827.GD22361@redhat.com> <20100827111507.5278eba3@doriath> <4C77D2EB.1030306@codemonkey.ws> <20100827130856.79869770@doriath> <4C780BD5.4030700@codemonkey.ws> <20100827162413.0235bcd0@doriath> <4C781412.6080303@codemonkey.ws> <4C7BCE19.30206@codemonkey.ws> <4C7BD085.3020100@codemonkey.ws> <20100830131602.2e846845@doriath> <4C7BDBCF.3090502@codemonkey.ws> <20100831095845.01290899@doriath> In-Reply-To: <20100831095845.01290899@doriath> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: Should QMP be RPC to internal C interfaces? List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Luiz Capitulino Cc: qemu list , Markus Armbruster , agl@us.ibm.com, Amit Shah , Paolo Bonzini On 08/31/2010 07:58 AM, Luiz Capitulino wrote: > On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 14:48:51 +0200 > Markus Armbruster wrote: > > >> Anthony Liguori writes: >> >> [...] >> >>> My position is that we aren't any closer to having compatible APIs >>> then we were with the human monitor. I think we need to focus on >>> compatibility and that that has to be solved as the QEMU interface >>> level. I contend that it's not solvable at the QMP level. >>> >> We've argued from day 0 every step along the way. And here we are, one >> year later, still arguing about the very basics. >> >> There's a fundamental disagreement. I want to keep QMP the way it was >> designed: supporting compatible evolution. You want to remake it from >> the ground up as RPC to internal C interfaces. >> >> It seems exceedingly unlikely to me that we can agree on the wisdom of >> such a remake. We can repeat and elaborate on our arguments for a >> while, but let's face it: we want different things. >> > Yes, that's the fundamental problem here. > Okay, so what's the path forward? I've proposed something that I think can get us out of the rut that we're in. I've got code to support that. Ignoring what I've proposed, what do we do differently? Regards, Anthony Liguori >> I'm afraid I can't build you the thing you want. The best I can offer >> is to step out of the way and let you build it. >> >> >