From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=55769 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Q4GPS-0006bP-4a
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 13:39:24 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1Q4GPQ-0006Hv-Hq
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 13:39:21 -0400
Received: from mail-gy0-f173.google.com ([209.85.160.173]:61742)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1Q4GPQ-0006Hj-FV
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 13:39:20 -0400
Received: by gyg4 with SMTP id 4so1190942gyg.4
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 10:39:16 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4D90C7C3.6020700@codemonkey.ws>
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 12:39:15 -0500
From: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [RFC][PATCH v1 05/12] qapi: fix handling for
	null-return async callbacks
References: <1301082479-4058-1-git-send-email-mdroth@linux.vnet.ibm.com>	<1301082479-4058-6-git-send-email-mdroth@linux.vnet.ibm.com>	<4D8D0788.7070700@us.ibm.com>
	<20110328134747.5c9fbc8e@doriath>	<4D90BEDC.6050207@us.ibm.com>
	<20110328140651.13f10e43@doriath>	<4D90C339.9040204@codemonkey.ws>
	<20110328142722.468815c1@doriath>
In-Reply-To: <20110328142722.468815c1@doriath>
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: Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@redhat.com>
Cc: Jes.Sorensen@redhat.com, agl@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Michael Roth <mdroth@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On 03/28/2011 12:27 PM, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
>
> We had to make a choice. We chose the current 'return' response. Iirc, one of
> my first suggestions was "{ 'return': 'null' }"

It would be:

{ 'return': null }

That's the valid JSON version.

>   but you refused to have a 'null'
> object, our parser doesn't even support it afaik.

It doesn't but that's because there isn't a QNone.

> But what's the problem with the current format?

Nothing, I was mostly curious as I only vaguely remember this discussion 
previously.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori