On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 05:57:38PM +0100, Andreas Färber wrote: [...] > And it's true that we could in fact just instantiate the object for > -device foo,? - it's just that nobody wrote code for that. I didn't do > the original QOM conversion so I don't feel guilty, I don't normally use > -device foo,? so not affected, I followed Anthony's instructions for how > to and how not to implement things. In a few cases Anthony has changed > his mind (method inheritence for instance) but for that you'll need to > discuss with him and not just argue with me about something that Anthony > has decided in the past. That's just pissing me off because it feels > like a waste of my time. You are not alone. I remember we spent lots of time trying to convince Anthony to allow global properties and compat_props affect dynamic properties not just static properties, and static properties were a big deal due to reasons I didn't understand completely. Now I am hearing the opposite message, and I don't understand the reasons for the change of plans. I am confused. -- Eduardo -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list