Il 19/03/2012 20:34, Anthony Liguori ha scritto: >> >> Is this acceptable or just wrong? > > This is a feature. The idea is that with QMP, old clients just ignore > extra members in a structure. I've never felt that comfortable with > this as a semantic but this is how QMP was designed.
For old clients that could be fine. But what about old servers? :) Perhaps we need an argument to the QMPInputVisitor constructor to control this. > If you don't allow this semantic, then it's impossible to ever add a > field to an existing type as that would break backwards compatibility. Paolo
