On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 11:16 AM Daniel P. Berrangé <berra...@redhat.com> wrote: > I guess there's a balance to be had somewhere on the spectrum between doing > everything against the raw C binding, vs everything against a perfectly > idiomatic Rust API wrapping the C bniding. The latter might be the ideal, > but from a pragmmatic POV I doubt we want the barrier to entry to be that > high.
Yes, I agree. I guess we could make things work step by step, even committing something that only focuses on the build system like Manos's work (I'll review it). I can try to look at the basic QOM interface. Manos, can you create a page on the wiki? Something like https://wiki.qemu.org/Features/Meson. Paolo > Is this not something we can figure out organically as part of the code > design and review processes ? > > e.g. if during review we see a device impl doing something where a higher > level API would have unambiguous benefits, and creatino of such a higher > level API is a practically achieveable task, then ask for it. If a higher > level API is desirable, but possibly not practical, then raise it as an > potential idea, but be willing to accept the technical debt. > > With 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 :| >
