From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=56859 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Pd6VR-0007OC-PS for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 14:37:19 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Pd6VN-0004Y7-SQ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 14:37:14 -0500 Received: from mail-qy0-f180.google.com ([209.85.216.180]:61889) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Pd6VN-0004Xu-Pt for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 14:37:13 -0500 Received: by qyk29 with SMTP id 29so957939qyk.4 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 11:37:13 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4D2E02A6.3060308@codemonkey.ws> Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 13:36:06 -0600 From: Anthony Liguori MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Spice-devel] [Qemu-devel] spicevmv chardev, guest agents and paravirtual mouse References: <4D2DD2F1.6030801@redhat.com> <4D2DE7AA.3010202@codemonkey.ws> <4D2DFA1C.9010901@redhat.com> <20110112192834.GB19085@playa.tlv.redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20110112192834.GB19085@playa.tlv.redhat.com> 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: Hans de Goede , spice-devel , Gerd Hoffmann , "qemu-devel@nongnu.org" On 01/12/2011 01:28 PM, Alon Levy wrote: > > Regarding wire protocol this would of course be very wasteful. If it's used > between the guest and host except for the translation overhead, which is minimal > I think (except for a copy-paste of a large amount of data - I'm not familiar > enough with XML-RPC but I guess it has some way to pass binary buffers unmodified?), > I don't have a particular objection, other then hoping we consider alternatives (there > are a few). > > Regarding one-off protocols in general, I agree it creates code duplication > and should be avoided. In that respect I prefer mechanisems that produce > implementations from a declarative description. But I would prefer a binary > protocol, possibly a convertion of the existing spice protocol to declarative > form (like Alex did to the core spice protocols, see spice.proto and spice1.proto, > http://cgit.freedesktop.org/spice/spice/tree/spice.proto > Of course there are many implementations of this outside of spice, like protocol > buffers). I also don't think a one-off is necessarily a bad thing. > Yeah, it might be worthwhile to look at protocol buffers. Regards, Anthony Liguori >> Note while on the subject of design, I think that having some sort of >> capabilities negotiation so that we can provide compatibility between >> different versions is important. >> >> Regards, >> >> Hans >> >>