From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:35627) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Wn4l0-0000cE-1R for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 21 May 2014 07:32:31 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Wn4kv-00021X-3V for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 21 May 2014 07:32:25 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:41505) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Wn4ku-00021Q-PZ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 21 May 2014 07:32:21 -0400 Received: from int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.26]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s4LBWJWX032107 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Wed, 21 May 2014 07:32:20 -0400 Message-ID: <537C8EC2.70803@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 05:32:18 -0600 From: Eric Blake MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1400576881-6954-1-git-send-email-famz@redhat.com> <537BA947.9090800@redhat.com> <20140521015912.GC18886@T430.nay.redhat.com> <87y4xv8ymp.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org> <20140521070911.GH18886@T430.nay.redhat.com> <87lhtv60b0.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org> <20140521082307.GA3579@noname.redhat.com> <20140521084225.GA13469@T430.nay.redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20140521084225.GA13469@T430.nay.redhat.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="5kN4uXOepCsqUgciQXgCLuApKlhaoATBR" Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH v2 0/7] qapi: Specify default value for optional argument in schema json List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Fam Zheng , Kevin Wolf Cc: Markus Armbruster , Stefan Hajnoczi , qemu-devel@nongnu.org This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --5kN4uXOepCsqUgciQXgCLuApKlhaoATBR Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 05/21/2014 02:42 AM, Fam Zheng wrote: >>>>> Adding three ugly sigils and making everybody include one when they= add >>>>> a nested struct feels much better to me than ugly sigils all over t= he >>>>> place. >>>> >>>> Well, I could use some background here. Why did we introduce nested = structure >>>> in the first place? >>> >>> Because we could? >>> >>> Felt like a good idea at the time? >>> >>> I quick glance at commit 0f923be and fb3182c suggests they have been >>> supported since the beginning. There is no design rationale. >> >> Let me extend Fam's question: Why don't we simply remove them right >> now? If it's really only three instances, converting them to full >> types should be a matter of five minutes. >> >=20 > Actually, my question is: do we want it independently, or do we want to= include > the removal of nested as the first part of this series? Doing it as an independent series first might be the way forward - independent so that it doesn't stall on reviews of the new syntax for default values, and up front because it seems like a simple enough conversion that then makes the entire generator simpler that it will be easy to approve and get in tree. >=20 > I would prefer the former because I feel uncomfortable with making more= changes > in this series, since there are already many things to do: adding qapi = types, > adding argument property dict, adding all test cases for all of them, u= pdating > documentation, and apply the new syntax in qapi-schema.json. A non-RFC = revision > could be long and hard to review. At the end of the day, we want both things; and it makes more sense to remove the conflicting syntax up front than it does to add an alternate syntax only to later remove it. Doing it as two shorter series one after the other rather than cramming it into one long series is psychologically easier to review. --=20 Eric Blake eblake redhat com +1-919-301-3266 Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org --5kN4uXOepCsqUgciQXgCLuApKlhaoATBR Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 Comment: Public key at http://people.redhat.com/eblake/eblake.gpg Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJTfI7CAAoJEKeha0olJ0NqoRIIAJtUAlI2CfjZEEkttpNiHUOh ok3cgCQN78RiefZeRDl7nt004BgdHEajRyCqwUFbDQYb1JQzIxm87sv3z5GUZGIJ ehARbIPAmsPfibNI0gMjCNVXrdG/tJcpN0L/fiMrjs++JCu+TLjcLj32Q7EMb2k6 8fmGfNgjBk2b140FT7zqg0N3CWKh9o0+/FtXVc0/BeRCqX1WKNFfjaXyvfHs5CtS 0JTiaX2GpjMzf6wRJr1tmAXL/DNA7lMEK8qLOC95O6uv1B2rW0OLh1hYjGVO5Fo3 y2dc2HtkCq4HZdaqOjk+tUYrTk/nuXDMlHMBPFApf72RizA+d+OnE1LQ4drGv9I= =ZKLq -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --5kN4uXOepCsqUgciQXgCLuApKlhaoATBR--