On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 09:39:07AM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote: > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <m...@redhat.com> writes: > > > On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 06:19:55PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote: > >> "Michael S. Tsirkin" <m...@redhat.com> writes: > >> > >> > On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 10:59:35AM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote: > >> >> If we can protect them without > >> >> complicating or breaking stuff, sure, why not. But not at all costs. > >> > > >> > The stuff we break is precisely the stuff our warnings > >> > say might break at any time. So since you believe users > >> > might be relied on not to ignore warnings, it should be ok ... > >> > > >> > As for complicating things - about 5 lines of code are spent > >> > on the unsupported/root/ hack. It *is* a hack but > >> > contained enough not to worry me too much ... > >> > >> I'm not worried about the implementation complexity at all. It's the > >> user interface complexity. After this patch, we have a non-trivial > >> mapping from -fw_cfg name to FW_CFG filename to explain. Whereas now, > >> -fw_cfg name *is* the FW_CFG path. > > > > Only for people who ignore the rules. Most people have a trivial > > mapping. > > Even when most usage falls into the simple cases, you still have to > explain all cases. > > An interface's complexity is a property of the interface, not of its > usage.
I think I disagree. Make simple things simple and complex things possible is the rule for a good interface. -- MST
