From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:45791) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SWTR6-0000kT-0N for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 21 May 2012 10:18:13 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SWTR1-0008Ag-98 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 21 May 2012 10:18:11 -0400 Received: from e38.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.159]:40756) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SWTR1-0008AD-3M for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 21 May 2012 10:18:07 -0400 Received: from /spool/local by e38.co.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Mon, 21 May 2012 08:18:01 -0600 Received: from d03relay05.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay05.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.107]) by d03dlp02.boulder.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A19663E40066 for ; Mon, 21 May 2012 08:17:49 -0600 (MDT) Received: from d03av05.boulder.ibm.com (d03av05.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.85]) by d03relay05.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id q4LEHaJe171790 for ; Mon, 21 May 2012 08:17:37 -0600 Received: from d03av05.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av05.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id q4LEHYd2018029 for ; Mon, 21 May 2012 08:17:35 -0600 Message-ID: <4FBA4E57.6030100@us.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 09:16:55 -0500 From: Anthony Liguori MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <4FB6821A.1080902@redhat.com> <20120521105901.4fbe7363@doriath.home> <4FBA4C98.20109@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <4FBA4C98.20109@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Proposal for extensions of block job commands in QEMU 1.2 List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Kevin Wolf Cc: Stefan Hajnoczi , qemu-devel , Luiz Capitulino , Federico Simoncelli , Paolo Bonzini , Eric Blake On 05/21/2012 09:09 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote: > Am 21.05.2012 15:59, schrieb Luiz Capitulino: >> On Fri, 18 May 2012 19:08:42 +0200 >> Paolo Bonzini wrote: >> >>> Modified QMP commands >>> ===================== >> >> As we have discussed on the ML, we're not going to extend QMP commands. >> >> I understand your reasoning, and since the beginning I thought this was >> something useful to do, but we've already settled for not doing this. >> >> I also think that we shouldn't have exceptions, as in practice this means >> we're extending commands anyway. So either, we do it or we don't. > > What's the reason for disallowing command extensions? I'd find it rather > silly to maintain ten different functions that all do basically the > same, just that some of them have more optional parameters than others... How does a client figure out if the command supports the new options? And start writing the Python code for it before answering... Even if we exposed the schema via QMP, checking via schema interpretation would be a nightmare. Regards, Anthony Liguori > > Kevin >