[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v1 00/14]: Initial QObject conversion
From: |
Luiz Capitulino |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v1 00/14]: Initial QObject conversion |
Date: |
Fri, 2 Oct 2009 15:32:16 -0300 |
On Fri, 02 Oct 2009 17:36:13 +0200
Gerd Hoffmann <address@hidden> wrote:
> Hi,
> >
> >> So maybe they shouldn't be named MonitorError in the first place?
> >
> > What do you suggest?
> >
> > Hm.. This could be QError, meaning that it's also a QObject,
> > so that we can put it in dicts, lists, etc.
>
> Makes sense to me.
>
> Attaching the pretty-print callback to the error struct not to the
> monitor command is a good move too. Makes it easier to reuse these
> functions.
>
> Hmm, maybe it would be even better to link the pretty-print functions to
> error codes?
Yes, I'll try that.
> >> Why user_error is needed in the first place btw? To maintain
> >> backward-compatible error message formating?
> >
> > Yes and to do pretty printing too.
> >
> > For example:
> >
> > qemu_error("Device \"%s\" not found. Try -device '?' for a list.\n",
> > driver);
> >
> > Makes sense for humans, but for QMP it would probably look like:
> >
> > { "error": { "code": 1234,
> > "desc": "device not found",
> > "data": { "name": "foobar-device" } } }
>
> You could have a generic function which makes a message like this:
>
> 'device not found: name=foobar-device'
>
> out of the QError. Not too bad. You'll loose the '-device ?' hint though.
>
> I think it is reasonable to make the pretty-print callback optional and
> use the generic function in case it isn't present. So you have
> something working by default and can override it of the message isn't
> userfriendly or backward-compatible enougth.
Yeah, it's a good idea.
> > So, when QMP is disabled that function will be called to print the error
> > for humans. When QMP is enabled this is never called and the protocol
> > emission code will use QError to emit something like the { "error" }
> > dict above.
>
> Thanks for the explanation.
Thanks for the feedback!