On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 06:31:35AM -0800, Anthony Liguori wrote: > On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 2:55 AM, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Il 07/02/2014 11:16, Eduardo Habkost ha scritto: > > > >> 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. > > > > > > Picture me confused as well, but at the same I think I understand the > > reasons for the change of plans. > > There's no real convincing. It's just a question of code. I am sure there's a lot of convincing involved, even after the code is written (in this case, 15 months after the code was written). > There are > no defaults in classes for dynamic properties to modify. compat_props > are a nice mechanism, making them work for all properties is a > reasonable thing to do. That's exactly the opposite of what you said before[1]. But that isn't supposed to be a problem, I understand there may be change of plans (we should be able to change our minds). What I don't understand is the rejection of code that works, matches the style used by 200+ other source files, adds more useful introspectable information, done in the way that was suggested 16 months ago, because we have some rough idea about how a new grand design will look like in the far future. [1] http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2013-06/msg00990.html -- Eduardo -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list