On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 15:00:10 -0500 Anthony Liguori <anth...@codemonkey.ws> wrote:
> >> That said, I think we made a critical mistake in QMP that practically > >> means that we need bindings for QMP. There is no argument ordering. > > I'm sorry? Critical mistake? Didn't _we_ consciously choose a dictionary > > for this? > > Yes, we did. In fact, I'm fairly sure that Avi and/or I strongly > advocated it. > > But hindsight is always 20/20 and if our goal is to have an API that > doesn't require special support in Python beyond a simple transport > class, using dictionaries and not allowing unnamed positional parameters > was a mistake. > > But we makes lots of mistakes. That's part of the development process. IMO, what's happening here is that you want (or your focus is in) a different thing. Since the beginning we (Markus and I) have focused on having a flexible wire interface. In its most part, this requirement came from Avi (please Avi, correct me if I'm wrong), but of course that I agreed with it. You've said many times that you don't value non-C consumers that much, while our focus until today has been on higher level clients. There's a clear conflict/contradiction here, and I don't feel I can keep discussing this anymore. So, apart from trying to help stabilizing the QAPI, the best I can do is to pass QMP maintenance over to you and you and Avi (as QEMU maintainers) decide what to do from here on.
