[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 2/2] qapi: Allow setting default values for o
From: |
Eric Blake |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 2/2] qapi: Allow setting default values for optional parameters |
Date: |
Tue, 06 May 2014 06:35:49 -0600 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0 |
On 05/06/2014 03:55 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> Keeping the input file easy to write, and more compact than what
>> introspection will output, is a fine tradeoff in my book (easier to
>> maintain if there is less to type; while still having a well-defined
>> conversion to the formal output form).
>
> Unlike the other sugared form, this one adds syntax beyond JSON, namely
> in some (but not all) member names, and that makes it a bit harder to
> stomach for me.
JSON has no requirement that a 'name':'value' object limit the 'name'
portion to just valid identifier characters. But I do see your point
about the fact that we are parsing a sigil of '*' as the first character
of 'name' as sugar.
>
> Whether it's worthwhile depends on how common the case "optional, no
> default" turns out to be. Wait and see.
It's already VERY common - every optional variable already uses the
syntax. The question is rather: how many optional variables will be
rewritten to express a default value, vs. those that can be left alone
because the default value is good enough. A global search-and-replace
could rewrite the entire file to the new syntax for optional variables,
and we could enforce the new more verbose style going forward, but is
the churn worth it?
--
Eric Blake eblake redhat com +1-919-301-3266
Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 2/2] qapi: Allow setting default values for optional parameters, Fam Zheng, 2014/05/05
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 2/2] qapi: Allow setting default values for optional parameters, Markus Armbruster, 2014/05/06