On Thu, 31 May 2012 10:10:07 +0200 Kevin Wolf <kw...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Am 30.05.2012 18:41, schrieb Luiz Capitulino: > > On Wed, 30 May 2012 16:19:43 +0200 > > Kevin Wolf <kw...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > >> Am 30.05.2012 12:01, schrieb Pavel Hrdina: > >>> For debug it would be nice to have a same functionality for the qmp > >>> monitor > >>> on stdio as the hmp monitor on stdio has. For this purpose we also use > >>> readline mode for qmp monitor on stdio. > >>> > >>> Because we don't need anymore an echo function for stdio, there is also > >>> revert of > >>> a commit, which added this functionality. > >> > >> Thanks, this will be really helpful when using QMP manually! > > > > Except it adds a user feature down the QMP low-levels... > > So it's implemented in the wrong layer? Yes. I've talked with Pavel yesterday and suggested him that maybe this could be implemented at the chardev layer. > > What's the problem with using rlwrap as suggested here: > > > > http://wiki.qemu.org/QMP#By_hand > > Is it a feature these days to annoy users? > > Your link is a whole screen full of description what I need to do. It shows different ways to talk to QMP. My preferred one is to use rlwrap. For quick testing, my qemu config will always create a socket in a known location and then I have an alias to run rlwrap. This takes nothing to do and has all the features you're asking for. > Seriously? The natural thing to do is -qmp stdio, and I don't read any > wikis for that. > > It's nice that you can get some kind of usability by typing in long > network addresses or path names and hacking a rlwrap around it (didn't > know this one yet), but it's not stuff I want to deal with. It should > just work. I'm not opposed to having this somewhere else, but adding a crude hack down QMP low-levels just to have readline support while the same functionality can be achieved by using a simple tool doesn't make much sense to me. Actually, rlwrap supports more features than our NIH readline implementation. > > Or using/improving QMP shell? > > It tries to abstract QMP away from me. If I didn't want QMP, I'd use the > human monitor. Not sure if I can even get QMP shell to send a complex > command like 'transaction' correctly. Let's improve it if it doesn't. > Anyway, even if QMP shell did what I wanted, I don't want to mess with > starting up another program and typing in network addresses. qemu used > to be simple to use, and that's what I liked about it. You can use aliases. Let's not forget that we're talking about a machine protocol vs. a user gui.
