Am 11.05.2013 um 05:34 hat Eric Blake geschrieben: > On 05/08/2013 06:49 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote: > > Am 29.04.2013 um 09:42 hat Stefan Hajnoczi geschrieben: > >> @block-backup > >> > > > drive-backup would probably be a more consistent naming. We would then > > still have block-backup for a future low-level command that doesn't > > create everything by itself but takes an existing BlockDriverState (e.g. > > created by blockdev-add). > > At least it would match why we named a command 'drive-mirror' instead of > 'block-mirror'. > > Hmm, looking at qapi-schema.json, I wonder if we can rename > 'BlockdevAction' to 'TransactionAction' as used in the @transaction > command. It wouldn't change what is sent over the wire in JSON, and > until we have full introspection, there is no visibility into the type > name used. Changing the name now would let it be more generic to adding > future transaction items that are not blockdev related.
Good point, I never realised that once we have schema introspection, doing such changes is harder. I'm all for it - it's bad enough that we have specifically block jobs instead of just background jobs, we shouldn't repeat the same mistake with transactions. Kevin
