On Wed, 30 Oct 2013 13:25:35 -0600 Eric Blake <ebl...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 10/30/2013 07:49 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote: > > > > > The first proposal is to add another parameter, say "id". Users can > > then refer either to an arbitrary BDS by "id", or (for backward > > compatibility) to the root BDS by "device". When the code sees > > "device", it'll look up the BB, then fetch its root BDS. > > > > CON: Existing parameter "device" becomes compatibility cruft. > > > > PRO: Clean and obvious semantics (in my opinion). > > I like this one as well. Does this proposal makes "device" optional for existing commands? If it does then I'm afraid it breaks compatibility because if you don't specify a device you'll get an error today. Have you considered adding new commands instead? > > I think we should review with the QMP schema first, code second. > > Yes, get the interface right, and then it's easier to review the code > that implements the interface. Agreed.
