Re: [PATCH 2 of 2] RFC: libxl: move definition of libxl_domain_config into the IDL

[Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>]

On Tue, 2012-04-24 at 18:57 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Ian Campbell writes ("[Xen-devel] [PATCH 2 of 2] RFC: libxl: move definition of libxl_domain_config into the IDL"):
> > RFC: libxl: move definition of libxl_domain_config into the IDL
> > 
> > This requires adding a new Array type to the IDL.
> > 
> > DO NOT APPLY. This is 4.3 material.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>
> 
> Acked-by: Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com>
> 
> > +  idl.Array.len_var contains an idl.Field which is added to the parent
> > +  idl.Aggregate and will contain the length of the array.
> 
> Why does the Array not automatically invent a "num_<foo>" field ?
> Surely there is no benefit to having non-systematically named (or
> typed) array count fields ?

That would be good but currently the Array type doesn't see the name of
the member in the containing struct:
Struct("thing", [
	("disks", Array(libxl_device_disk, "num_disks")),
])

We have a similar problem with the KeyedUnion which similarly ought to
be able to at least default keyvar_name to something.

Ian.