From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:43621)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1W0x0R-00018z-2t
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 08 Jan 2014 12:33:33 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1W0x0K-0001jC-LF
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 08 Jan 2014 12:33:27 -0500
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:17738)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1W0x0K-0001ih-DC
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 08 Jan 2014 12:33:20 -0500
Message-ID: <52CD8BD7.8070706@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2014 18:33:11 +0100
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1389197382-25085-1-git-send-email-imammedo@redhat.com>
	<52CD7BBF.3030202@redhat.com>
	<20140108175159.029e5f9e@nial.usersys.redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <20140108175159.029e5f9e@nial.usersys.redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC 0/5] -object/object-add support custom
 location and 2nd stage initialization
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/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: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Igor Mammedov <imammedo@redhat.com>
Cc: stefanha@redhat.com, sw@weilnetz.de, mjt@tls.msk.ru, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, lcapitulino@redhat.com, blauwirbel@gmail.com, aliguori@amazon.com, afaerber@suse.de, rth@twiddle.net

Il 08/01/2014 17:51, Igor Mammedov ha scritto:
>> > 
>> > Thanks Igor!  I like very much patches 1-4 (though I'm thinking that we
>> > need some style conventions for interfaces).  I think patch 5 adds more
>> > complexity than we need, but I'm open to discussion.
> I'm sorry that it took so long.
> The reason for separate interfaces is that realize interface is more generic
> and might be used outside of '-object'. While I don't see 'path' interface
> ever used outside of -object.

Yeah, I think the two interfaces are a good idea.  The question is
whether we want the second interface at all.  I think it's fine to
delegate namespace conventions to management.

Regarding the "overloading" of the realize name, I was against it in
previous discussion and I still am (I was in favor of something like
UserCreatable and naming the method "complete" or "construct"), but I
didn't want to sound too negative. :)

Paolo