Luiz Capitulino lcapitul...@redhat.com writes:
On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 18:24:24 -0600
Anthony Liguori anth...@codemonkey.ws wrote:
On 01/11/2010 06:04 PM, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
As async messages were one of the reasons for having QMP, I thought
that there was a consensus that making it
On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 17:53:38 +0100
Markus Armbruster arm...@redhat.com wrote:
Luiz Capitulino lcapitul...@redhat.com writes:
On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 18:24:24 -0600
Anthony Liguori anth...@codemonkey.ws wrote:
On 01/11/2010 06:04 PM, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
As async messages were one
Luiz Capitulino lcapitul...@redhat.com writes:
On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 17:53:38 +0100
Markus Armbruster arm...@redhat.com wrote:
Luiz Capitulino lcapitul...@redhat.com writes:
[...]
I'm thinking in something like this:
1. Connection is made, the greeting message is sent and QMP is
in
On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 18:38:57 +0100
Markus Armbruster arm...@redhat.com wrote:
Luiz Capitulino lcapitul...@redhat.com writes:
On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 17:53:38 +0100
Markus Armbruster arm...@redhat.com wrote:
Luiz Capitulino lcapitul...@redhat.com writes:
[...]
I'm thinking in something
Markus Armbruster wrote:
It should be optional if we want to support clients that don't want it.
I don't think coping with it would be a terrible burden on clients, but
neither is having to ask for it. Personally, I'd make it optional.
It wouldn't be a terrible burden, but it'll be easier to
Anthony Liguori anth...@codemonkey.ws writes:
On 01/11/2010 06:04 PM, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
[...]
3. We should add command(s) to enable/disable protocol features
4. Proper feature negotiation is done in pause mode. That's, clients
interested in enabling new protocol features should start
On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 18:24:24 -0600
Anthony Liguori anth...@codemonkey.ws wrote:
On 01/11/2010 06:04 PM, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
As async messages were one of the reasons for having QMP, I thought
that there was a consensus that making it part of the original
protocol was ok, meaning
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 09:16:43 +0100
Markus Armbruster arm...@redhat.com wrote:
Now, if everything is disabled by default and qemu might be running
already, do we really need to have a handshake?
I think it's valuable to have a discrete period of time when no
commands have been
Hi.
We (Markus and I) are working on getting QMP forward compatibility support,
supported. :)
We have a plan for it and I'd like to ask the CC'ed people to review it.
Needless to say, but the objective here is to add new commands, arguments,
async messages and protocol features w/o
On 01/11/2010 12:34 PM, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
Hi.
We (Markus and I) are working on getting QMP forward compatibility support,
supported. :)
We have a plan for it and I'd like to ask the CC'ed people to review it.
Needless to say, but the objective here is to add new commands,
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 12:57:15PM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 01/11/2010 12:34 PM, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
Hi.
We (Markus and I) are working on getting QMP forward compatibility
support,
supported. :)
We have a plan for it and I'd like to ask the CC'ed people to review it.
On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 12:57:15 -0600
Anthony Liguori anth...@codemonkey.ws wrote:
On 01/11/2010 12:34 PM, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
Hi.
We (Markus and I) are working on getting QMP forward compatibility
support,
supported. :)
We have a plan for it and I'd like to ask the CC'ed
On 01/11/2010 06:04 PM, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
As async messages were one of the reasons for having QMP, I thought
that there was a consensus that making it part of the original
protocol was ok, meaning that they would be always available.
That's the only reason.
Right, but then it's
13 matches
Mail list logo
