On 02/04/2012 01:21 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
I'm not sure... we would trade removal of an ugly concept (the legacy properties) with addition of a layering violation (poking into the DeviceState subclasses).
The main problem here is that you said no to a hierarchy of property classes. This is what would be good here: being able to say "does this property have legacy print/parse methods?" and call them if available from device_add.
So, you can choose your poison. :) For now I think the idea in this patch series is good enough for its purpose (which is to actually _use_ QOM), we can tweak the design and really eliminate the legacy properties later. I don't mind going through multiple iterations as long as the state after each iteration is clearly better than before.
f Paolo
