On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 10:15:41PM -0400, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
>
> [CC'ing Amos this time]
>
> On Wed, 05 Jun 2013 09:29:19 +0800
> Qiao Nuohan <qiaonuo...@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote:
>
> > > I haven't reviewed it yet, but we need introspection support before
> > merging
> > > this.
> >
> > Hello Luiz,
> >
> > Is it possible to get this reviewed, or I am supposed to wait until
> > introspection support being settled?
>
> I can review it until the end of this week. If this series is adding a new
> argument (which I believe is what it does) then there's only two ways
> to get this merged: either we wait for full introspection or you add this
> feature as a new command.
>
> I'd prefer to wait for full introspection, but it depends how long it's
> going to take to get it merged and how much time you're willing to wait.
>
> Amos, can you give us an update on that work?
Summary of upstream discussion:
1) move events to schema.json, then it can also be introspected
(future work) (Luiz)
2) need to support to return everyting in one shot (Eric)
3) support filter by cmd/tyep/event name
4) processe qapi-schema.json for a more explicit wire format
with metadata (Eric)
5) dynamic schema (only for compiled/loaded modules) (Kevin)
6) the real motivation behind full introspection is to allow
commands/enum/etc to be extended
I'm tring to implement my original throught, it's a little bit slow
because of the effect of other tasks. I will send the draft patch
next week.
Amos.
