From: "Andreas Färber" <afaerber@suse.de>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>,
Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com>
Cc: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>,
qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Michael Roth <mdroth@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@redhat.com>,
Anthony Liguori <aliguori@amazon.com>,
Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] QOM vs QAPI for QMP APIs
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 09:33:50 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <530C556E.2020305@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <530C54B4.10102@redhat.com>
Am 25.02.2014 09:30, schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
> Il 25/02/2014 09:25, Markus Armbruster ha scritto:
>>> > Haven't we already done that in the past? For example, object-add
>>> > currently takes an unspecified dictionary of options, where you would
>>> > have to consult QOM documentation to learn what makes sense to send.
>> My question isn't about where the command details are documented, or
>> even whether they are documented. It's about ABI promises, or lack
>> thereof. The general promise for QMP is we treat it as stable ABI. If
>> we add QMP commands to examine and manipulate QOM, doesn't that move all
>> of QOM under the QMP ABI promise, unless we explicitly excempt it?
>
> We did already exempt it, in general. QOM is not declared stable.
Negative, QOM is stable in that properties may not change their type
incompatibly. Properties may be dropped/renamed, since that is
discoverable via qom-list, so it is less stable than the command line
interface.
Andreas
--
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer; HRB 16746 AG Nürnberg
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-02-25 8:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-02-21 9:16 [Qemu-devel] QOM vs QAPI for QMP APIs Stefan Hajnoczi
2014-02-21 14:29 ` Anthony Liguori
2014-02-21 14:37 ` Paolo Bonzini
2014-02-21 21:00 ` Eric Blake
2014-02-24 8:29 ` Markus Armbruster
2014-02-24 16:08 ` Eric Blake
2014-02-25 8:25 ` Markus Armbruster
2014-02-25 8:30 ` Andreas Färber
2014-02-25 8:30 ` Paolo Bonzini
2014-02-25 8:33 ` Andreas Färber [this message]
2014-02-21 14:32 ` Stefan Hajnoczi
2014-02-25 9:46 ` Kevin Wolf
2014-02-25 10:15 ` Stefan Hajnoczi
2014-02-25 10:47 ` Paolo Bonzini
2014-02-25 13:39 ` Kevin Wolf
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=530C556E.2020305@suse.de \
--to=afaerber@suse.de \
--cc=aliguori@amazon.com \
--cc=anthony@codemonkey.ws \
--cc=armbru@redhat.com \
--cc=eblake@redhat.com \
--cc=lcapitulino@redhat.com \
--cc=mdroth@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
--cc=stefanha@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).