On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 08:51:32AM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> Dor Laor wrote:
> >Laurent Vivier wrote:
> >>Le mardi 11 décembre 2007 à 10:10 +0100, Fabrice Bellard a écrit :
> >>
> >>>Hi,
> >>>
> >>
> >>Hi,
> >>
> >>
> >>>At this point I am not interested in integrating it into QEMU as it is
> >>>one more API level to maintain in addition to the command line monitor.
> >>>However, I can change my mind if several projects insists to have a
> >>>similar interface.
> >>>
> >>
> >>perhaps the DBUS interface can replace the command line monitor ?
> >>We have just to move the command line interface to a client speaking to
> >>qemu through the DBUS interface.
> >>
> >>
> >This is a valid option but the problem is that local user will have to
> >use another tool (client) to
> >send commands. Another option is to have a common backend with machine
> >& user interfaces.
> >For example, if we use dbus as the backend, monitor commands will just
> >be translated into dbus.
> >The opposite option is also valid.
> >
> >Anyway, the motivation behind a new interface is that the monitor
> >interface is not good enough for automation:
> >There are not return status for commands, no option for async
> >notifications, no option for parallel actions in case
> >a command takes long time to complete (like snapshot).
>
> All of these are valid, and addressable. Return statuses can just be
> added to the beginning of the output of each command (similar to how
> POP3 works). Async notification can be made to work by add support to
> the monitor for a "select" command. Semantically, select would block
> the monitor and then output events. For this to work really well, you
> would have to support multiple simultaneous monitor sessions. The
> parallel options for long running commands is already address in KVM
> with the migration command. We just have to rework the snapshotting to
> be properly asynchronous.
>
> >
> >So we either a new interface is added or the existing one will be
> >enhanced.
> >Since Qemu/KVM will be used in production its highly important to have
> >a reliable channel to connects with mgmt daemons.
> >Dbus is a common practice for communication and used in Linux,
> >libvirt, etc. The question is whether to add a dbus server to Qemu or
> >a client is sufficient.
>
> The main objection I have to dbus is that it's very heavy weight. It
> implies a rather fat infrastructure and it not very suitable for
> embedding. QEMU has very few dependencies and that is a strength ATM.
> People interested in embedding QEMU still want a good management
> interface so enhancing the monitor seems more preferable to me than
> adding a dbus dependency.
It is also not so easily portable to other OS like Windows & Mac OS, who