2011/1/29 Paolo Bonzini pbonz...@redhat.com:
On 01/28/2011 04:31 PM, Yoshiaki Tamura wrote:
That's the hack I was imaging:)
So your original patch is also a hack? :)
TBH, yeah :) I didn't came up better idea that is not over
engineered.
Maybe this is just an issue of preference, but I'm
On 01/29/2011 10:31 AM, Yoshiaki Tamura wrote:
OK, then while keeping -incoming kemari:tcp:host:port as a
strong solution, could you please explain why placing the original
parser under tcp handler wasn't a good idea? With that,
-incoming exec .*,ft_mode shouldn't be a problem.
But a
2011/1/29 Paolo Bonzini pbonz...@redhat.com:
On 01/29/2011 10:31 AM, Yoshiaki Tamura wrote:
OK, then while keeping -incoming kemari:tcp:host:port as a
strong solution, could you please explain why placing the original
parser under tcp handler wasn't a good idea? With that,
-incoming exec
On 01/29/2011 12:32 PM, Yoshiaki Tamura wrote:
But a hypothetical -incoming unix.*,ft_mode would have to be implemented
twice.
You mean Kemari should be able to use with unix domain sockets,
or other local communication patch? Since Kemari needs two
remote hosts, I don't see why need to
2011/1/29 Paolo Bonzini pbonz...@redhat.com:
On 01/29/2011 12:32 PM, Yoshiaki Tamura wrote:
But a hypothetical -incoming unix.*,ft_mode would have to be
implemented
twice.
You mean Kemari should be able to use with unix domain sockets,
or other local communication patch? Since Kemari
2011/1/28 Paolo Bonzini pbonz...@redhat.com:
On 01/28/2011 02:53 PM, Yoshiaki Tamura wrote:
1) I am not sure what would happen with -incoming exec;
Nothing happens if used with other protocols, but I assume you're
mentioning that it's not clear from the code, which makes sense.
I assume
On 01/28/2011 04:05 PM, Yoshiaki Tamura wrote:
Having a scheme like kemari:tcp:host:port looks quite
challenging to me. We can of course add some quick hacks for it,
but adding a nice layered architecture should be more
appropriate. Similar to protocols and formats in block layer?
At the same
2011/1/29 Paolo Bonzini pbonz...@redhat.com:
On 01/28/2011 04:05 PM, Yoshiaki Tamura wrote:
Having a scheme like kemari:tcp:host:port looks quite
challenging to me. We can of course add some quick hacks for it,
but adding a nice layered architecture should be more
appropriate. Similar to
On 01/28/2011 04:31 PM, Yoshiaki Tamura wrote:
That's the hack I was imaging:)
So your original patch is also a hack? :)
Maybe this is just an issue of preference, but I'm not sure
adding kemari: to be intuitive. If there were similar
extensions having the same problem, I would have agreed
