On Fri, 10 Jan 2014 12:28:10 +0100
Igor Mammedov <imamm...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Jan 2014 18:33:11 +0100
> Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > Il 08/01/2014 17:51, Igor Mammedov ha scritto:
[...]
> > > The reason for separate interfaces is that realize interface is more
> > > generic
> > > and might be used outside of '-object'. While I don't see 'path' interface
> > > ever used outside of -object.
> >
> > Yeah, I think the two interfaces are a good idea. The question is
> > whether we want the second interface at all. I think it's fine to
> > delegate namespace conventions to management.
> with dropping it, backends for sure can work without it, they will be just
> placed directly under "/objects". For memdev backend it might be upto 256
> objects, clattering "/objects" container.
> Stefan had the similar idea about grouping iothread objects inside
> "/backends/iothreads".
so what do we do with PATH interface?
1. drop it and put all backends into '/objects' container
2. keep it, allowing QEMU set default namespace
3. as discussed in "autogenerate ID" thread let management to pass QOM path
as ID and in case it starts with '/' use provided QOM path and default
to '/object' for not path ID.
> > Paolo
>
>
