Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lur...@gmail.com> writes: > Hi > > On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 1:21 PM Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com> wrote: >> >> Christophe de Dinechin <dinec...@redhat.com> writes: >> >> >> To make this worthwhile, we'd have to replace dynamic QOM properties by >> >> static ones when possible. Monumental task. >> > >> > I’m sure you are right, but it’s hard for me to evaluate, given how >> > many ways there are to access an object. Naively, grepping for >> > set_prop and for new_with_prop does not give me that many hits. >> >> Look for object_property_add*(). Some 450 hits. > > fwiw, I have started tackling that.
Laudable. > Easy first step is to move all QDev properties to class properties, > and this is done in : > https://patchew.org/QEMU/20200110153039.1379601-1-marcandre.lur...@redhat.com/ Easy because qdev properties are declarative by design. Imperative came in when they got rebased onto QOM. > Moving from instance to class properties is straightforward many times > (when the property is unconditonally added in instance init for > example). There are a few complicated cases though. > > To me, the most problematic is reviewer-time and willingness to do > such low-benefits changes. Understand. >> Basing the QAPI language on JSON was a poor choice. Aggravated by immediately extending it in ways that defeat all common JSON tools. >> Not sure that's >> fixable at a reasonable cost. > > Translating it to another language should be relatively easy, but to what? The QAPI language is layered on top of JSON (see docs/devel/qapi-code-gen.txt section "Schema syntax"). Swapping out JSON for another language that is at least as expressive is an relatively simple change. Obvious candidates: s-expressions, TOML, YAML. The latter is far too complex for my taste. The expensive part is dealing with the conflicts during the transition, and having everybody relearn QAPI schema syntax.
