On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 4:41 PM, Kevin Wolf <kw...@redhat.com> wrote: > Am 23.05.2013 um 13:57 hat Stefan Hajnoczi geschrieben: >> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 03:53:05PM +0200, Kevin Wolf wrote: >> > Am 16.05.2013 um 21:05 hat Eric Blake geschrieben: >> > > On 05/16/2013 02:24 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote: >> > The other thing that I'm not sure about is whether we should teach QAPI >> > to parse certain data structures just into QDicts instead of C structs, >> > or if dealing with the big unions inside the block layer actually makes >> > sense. >> >> This is an interesting question. It's very convenient from the code >> side - we don't have to worry about laying down a schema. >> >> However, the point of QAPI is to offer that schema that allows for us to >> reason about things like compatibility (hard to sneak in a patch that >> modifies the schema, easy to sneak in a patch that modifies block driver >> parameter code) and eliminates the boilerplate of type-checking/basic >> input validation. >> >> Even if it requires some effort, I think we should avoid tunneling >> schema-less data over QAPI. > > Note that I'm talking _only_ about the C side here. Everything that goes > through QMP is an external API and must described by a schema, I fully > agree there. > > The question is whether QAPI must, after validating the input against > the schema, parse it into C structs or whether it should be able to fill > QDicts and pass those around.
I see. In that case using a QDict seems fine. Stefan
