On 05/16/2010 01:16 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 05/16/2010 11:50 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 05/16/2010 12:37 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 05/15/2010 07:31 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 05/15/2010 11:59 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
Is this __class__ stuff documented anywhere?
Not yet. Also, we should clarify the proposed private extension
section
that only "__some_key" is reserved for downstream, not
'__some_other_key__' (i.e. downstream names must not end with '__').
Why use such weird names at all? What's wrong with 'class'?
That it conflicts with e.g. PCI classes?
Won't the context tell it apart?
Yes, of course, it you need to know the schema. If you don't know the
schema you don't know the context.
This QBuffer thing is something that a client QMP library could create
automatically. Keys in a separate namespace (like '__class__') have
the advantage of being easily picked up automatically by a wrapper of
the JSON parser; if you used simply 'class' such as layer would need
to know a schema, or it wouldn't know that "context".
Makes sense. So this is a protocol feature and needs to be documented
as such.
(BTW I'd prefer something like '__encoding__'; the word "class"
suggests much more than what it is in reality).
Agreed.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
