On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 07:11:53 -0600 Anthony Liguori <anth...@codemonkey.ws> wrote:
> Luiz Capitulino wrote: > > On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 10:08:16 -0600 > > Anthony Liguori <anth...@codemonkey.ws> wrote: > > > > > >> I'm certainly willing to consider alternative ways to do qmp_error() but > >> taking a free form string is not an option in my mind. It goes against > >> the fundamentals of what we're trying to build with QMP. > >> > > > > Agreed. > > > > > >> So if you're opposed to structured error data, just having > >> qmp_error(error_code) is a reasonable alternative. I don't think it's > >> the right thing to do, but I think it's still within the spirit of the > >> goals of QMP. > >> > > > > You mean, we would have calls like: > > > > qemu_error_new(error_code, 'device '%s' not found', name); > > > > Except drop the 'device %s not found' bit. We would need a table to have the strings for the user protocol then. Not having the table is a key point in Markus's argument, I guess.
