[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 01/11] QMP: Introduce specification file
From: |
Avi Kivity |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 01/11] QMP: Introduce specification file |
Date: |
Wed, 24 Jun 2009 16:09:38 +0300 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1b3pre) Gecko/20090513 Fedora/3.0-2.3.beta2.fc11 Lightning/1.0pre Thunderbird/3.0b2 |
On 06/24/2009 03:46 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
There are two questions to resolve. The first is whether we should
continue with the current direction (line-based protocol) or whether
we should switch to an RPC. The second question is which RPC we
should use.
I'm not at all convinced that we should switch to an RPC mechanism in
the first place. Perhaps someone could summarize the advantages of
doing this because right now, I don't see many.
Less effort for us.
Less effort for clients.
Less documentation effort.
Less likelihood of design and implementation holes (cf. UTF-8, quoting).
Richer data types (arrays, structures, nesting).
With respect to RPC choice, if we did go that route, I'd be very
concerned about using jsonrpc verses a more well established rpc. I
would honestly prefer xml-rpc over jsonrpc.
I agree xml-rpc is a more rational choice than jsonrpc, but I cannot
find it in my heart to say something nice about xml. Additionally, XML
parsers are pretty heavy.
One reason to choose an RPC is based on the adoption of it. You want
to use something that has a vibrant community with well established
client libraries to make writing clients as easy as possible. Without
an active jsonrpc C library, it's hard to argue that jsonrpc has
that. xml-rpc certainly does.
jsonrpc really is a trivial addition over json, and json is pretty
widespread. I think I saw a Python jsonrpc implementation.
The important thing however is to reuse, it doesn't really matter what
we reuse really as long as it's good enough.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 01/11] QMP: Introduce specification file, (continued)
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 01/11] QMP: Introduce specification file, Anthony Liguori, 2009/06/23
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 01/11] QMP: Introduce specification file, Vincent Hanquez, 2009/06/23
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 01/11] QMP: Introduce specification file, James, 2009/06/24
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 01/11] QMP: Introduce specification file, Daniel P. Berrange, 2009/06/24
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 01/11] QMP: Introduce specification file, James, 2009/06/24
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 01/11] QMP: Introduce specification file, Daniel P. Berrange, 2009/06/24
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 01/11] QMP: Introduce specification file, Stefano Stabellini, 2009/06/24
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 01/11] QMP: Introduce specification file, Anthony Liguori, 2009/06/24
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 01/11] QMP: Introduce specification file, Daniel P. Berrange, 2009/06/24
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 01/11] QMP: Introduce specification file, Avi Kivity, 2009/06/24
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 01/11] QMP: Introduce specification file,
Avi Kivity <=
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 01/11] QMP: Introduce specification file, Jamie Lokier, 2009/06/24
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 01/11] QMP: Introduce specification file, Avi Kivity, 2009/06/24
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 01/11] QMP: Introduce specification file, Jamie Lokier, 2009/06/24
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 01/11] QMP: Introduce specification file, Vincent Hanquez, 2009/06/24
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 01/11] QMP: Introduce specification file, Filip Navara, 2009/06/24
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 01/11] QMP: Introduce specification file, Jamie Lokier, 2009/06/24
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 01/11] QMP: Introduce specification file, Vincent Hanquez, 2009/06/24
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 01/11] QMP: Introduce specification file, Filip Navara, 2009/06/24
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 01/11] QMP: Introduce specification file, Jamie Lokier, 2009/06/24
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 01/11] QMP: Introduce specification file, Ian Jackson, 2009/06/24