On Wed, Oct 07, 2020 at 07:50:20PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 06/10/20 20:21, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > > * Does command-line order matter? > > * Two options: allow any order OR left-to-right ordering > > * Andrea Bolognani: Most users expect left-to-right ordering, > > why allow any order? > > * Eduardo Habkost: Can we enforce left-to-right ordering or do > > we need to follow the deprecation process? > > * Daniel Berrange: Solve compability by introducing new > > binaries without the burden of backwards compability > > I think "new binaries" shouldn't even have a command line; all > configuration should happen through QMP commands. Those are naturally > time-ordered, which is equivalent to left-to-right, and therefore the > question is sidestepped. Perhaps even having a command line in > qemu-storage-daemon was a mistake. Non-interactive configuration is a nice property for simpler integration use cases. eg launching from the shell is tedious with QMP compared to CLI args. This could be addressed though by having a configuration file to load config from, where the config entries can be mapped 1-1 onto QMP commands, essentially making the config file a non-interactive QMP. > The big question to me is whether the configuration should be > QAPI-based, that is based on QAPI structs, or QMP-based. If the latter, > "object-add" (and to a lesser extent "device-add") are fine mechanisms > for configuration. There is still need for better QOM introspection, > but it would be much simpler than doing QOM object creation via QAPI > struct, if at all possible. Regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
