Anthony Liguori <anth...@codemonkey.ws> writes:
> On 01/21/2010 03:09 PM, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
>> """
>> {"QMP": {"capabilities": ["async messages"]}}
>>
>> { "execute": "query-qmp-mode" }
>> {"return": {"mode": "handshake"}}
>>
>> { "execute": "change", "arguments": { "device": "vnc", "target": "password",
>> "arg": "1234" } }
>> {"error": {"class": "QMPInvalidModeCommad", "desc": "The issued command is
>> invalid in this mode", "data": {}}}
>>
>> { "execute": "async_msg_enable", "arguments": { "name": "STOP" } }
>> {"return": {}}
>>
>
> Maybe:
>
> enable-capability "async messages"
> disable-capability "async messages"
>
> I think that's a bit more obvious and it means that a client doesn't
> have to maintain a mapping of features -> enable functions. It's also
> strange to use an enable command to disable something.
Agree on both counts. But why two commands? Why not simply "capability
NAME VALUE"? Works even for non-boolean capabilities. I'm not
predicting we'll need such capabilities.
