From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=59818 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PxhpD-000256-EH
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 10 Mar 2011 10:30:52 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <avi@redhat.com>) id 1PxhpB-0001dM-Gt
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 10 Mar 2011 10:30:50 -0500
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:30240)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <avi@redhat.com>) id 1PxhpB-0001cx-7M
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 10 Mar 2011 10:30:49 -0500
Message-ID: <4D78EEA3.9050401@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 17:30:43 +0200
From: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 19/22] qapi: add QMP put-event command
References: <1299460984-15849-1-git-send-email-aliguori@us.ibm.com>	<1299460984-15849-20-git-send-email-aliguori@us.ibm.com>	<4D778117.9060505@redhat.com>	<4D778545.7040403@codemonkey.ws>
	<4D778797.9090602@redhat.com>	<4D778E07.5070408@codemonkey.ws>
	<4D78C69F.6010003@redhat.com> <4D78DC5A.3000601@codemonkey.ws>
	<4D78DF3A.9000600@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <4D78DF3A.9000600@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
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.nongnu.org/archive/html/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: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@redhat.com>

On 03/10/2011 04:24 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
>>> What would the wire exchange look like?
>>
>> > { 'execute': 'get-block-io-error-event' }
>> < { 'return' : 32 }
>> ...
>> < { 'event': 'BLOCK_IO_ERROR', 'data': { 'action': 'stop', 'device': 
>> 'ide0-hd0', 'operation': 'read' }, 'tag': 32 }
>> ...
>> > { 'execute': 'put-event', 'arguments': { 'tag': 32 } }
>
>
> Well, I may be biased, but I prefer my variant.
>
> btw, it's good to decree that a subscription is immediately followed 
> by an event with the current state (which means events have to provide 
> state and be idempotent); so the subscribe-and-query pattern is 
> provided automatically.
>
> btw2, I now nominate subscribe and unsubscribe as replacements for get 
> and put.

I also think it should be at the protocol layer:

 > { execute: some-command, id: foo, arguments: { ... } }
< { result: { ... }, id: foo }
 > { subscribe: block-io-error, id: bar, arguments: { ... } }
< { result: { ... } id: bar }
< { event: block-io-error, id: bar, data : { ... } }
 > { unsubscribe: block-io-error, id: bar }
< { result: { ... } id: bar }

So events are now protocol-level pieces like commands, and the use of 
tags is uniform.

-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function