On 02/03/2012 06:43 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 02/04/2012 01:21 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
I'm not sure... we would trade removal of an ugly concept (the legacy
properties) with addition of a layering violation (poking into the
DeviceState subclasses).
The main problem here is that you said no to a hierarchy of property classes.
This is what would be good here: being able to say "does this property have
legacy print/parse methods?" and call them if available from device_add.
So, you can choose your poison. :) For now I think the idea in this patch series
is good enough for its purpose (which is to actually _use_ QOM),
Yeah, I was just thinking out loud. My plan is to pull your series into my
qom-rebase branch.
The last few commits on https://github.com/aliguori/qemu/tree/qom-rebase.12 have
a variant visitor and accessors that use it.
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
we can tweak
the design and really eliminate the legacy properties later. I don't mind going
through multiple iterations as long as the state after each iteration is clearly
better than before.
f
Paolo
