Luiz Capitulino <lcapitul...@redhat.com> writes:
> On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 18:08:27 +0100
> Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> Luiz Capitulino <lcapitul...@redhat.com> writes:
>>
>> > Feature negotiation allows clients to enable new QMP capabilities they
>> > support and thus allows QMP to envolve in a compatible way.
>> >
>> > A capability is a new QMP feature and/or protocol change which is not
>> > part of
>> > the core protocol as defined in the QMP spec.
>>
>> Well, it becomes part of the protocol then. But I understand what you
>> mean.
>>
>> > Feature negotiation is implemented by, among other changes, adding
>> > mode-oriented support to QMP, which comprehends the following:
>> >
>> > o Two modes: handshake and operational
>> > o All QMP Monitors start in handshake mode
>> > o In handshake mode only commands to query/enable/disable QMP capabilities
>> > are
>> > allowed (there are few exceptions)
>> > o Clients can switch to the operational mode at any time
>> > o In Operational mode most commands are allowed and QMP capabilities
>> > changes
>> > made in handshake mode take effect
>> >
>> > Please, note that we don't have any capability yet. So, the most visable
>> > change in this series is that now Clients must switch to operational mode
>> > to
>> > be able to issue 'regular' commands.
>> >
>> > Session example:
>> >
>> > """
>> > {"QMP": {"capabilities": []}}
>> >
>> > { "execute": "query-qmp-mode" }
>> > {"return": {"mode": "handshake"}}
>> >
>> > { "execute": "stop" }
>> > {"error": {"class": "CommandNotFound", "desc": "The command stop has not
>> > been found", "data": {"name": "stop"}}}
>> >
>> > { "execute": "qmp_capability_enable", "arguments": { "name": "foobar" } }
>> > {"error": {"class": "InvalidParameter", "desc": "Invalid parameter name",
>> > "data": {"name": "name"}}}
>> >
>> > { "execute": "qmp_switch_mode", "arguments": { "mode": "operational" } }
>> > {"return": {}}
>> >
>> > { "execute": "query-qmp-mode" }
>> > {"return": {"mode": "operational"}}
>> >
>> > { "execute": "stop" }
>> > {"return": {}}
>> >
>> > """
>>
>> I don't doubt your design does the job. I just think it's overly
>> general. I had something far more stupid in mind:
>>
>> client connects
>> server -> client: version & capability offer (one message)
>> again:
>> client -> server: capability selection (one message)
>> server -> client: either okay or error (one message)
>> if error goto again
>> connection is now ready for commands
>>
>> No modes. The distinct lack of generality is a design feature.
>
> I like the simplicity and if we were allowed to change later I'd
> do it.
>
> The question is if we will ever want features to be _configured_
> before the protocol is operational. In this case we'd need to
> pass feature arguments through the capability selection command,
> which will get ugly and hard to use/understand.
>
> Mode oriented support doesn't have this limitation. Maybe we
> won't never really use it, but it's safer.
Capability selection could be done as an object where the name/value
pairs are capability/argument. If you need multiple arguments for a
capability, make the capability's value an object.
If we need more *protocol* configuration than that, then we've grown a
few bells & whistles to many, I'd say.
