Re: [Qemu-devel] Issues around TYPE_INTERFACE

[Peter Maydell]

On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 at 11:54, Daniel P. Berrangé <address@hidden> wrote:
> >     TYPE_ACPI_DEVICE_IF
> >     TYPE_ARM_LINUX_BOOT_IF
> >     TYPE_TEST_IF
> >     TYPE_TPM_IF
> >
> >     TYPE_IDAU_INTERFACE
> >     TYPE_IPMI_INTERFACE
> >     TYPE_PNV_XSCOM_INTERFACE
>
> I'm not so bothered by these, though they are pointless unless
> perhaps it is to avoid clash with a similarly named object
> type

For the ones of these that I'm responsible for, I was
partly following an existing example, but I find it useful
as a user of the APIs that it's clear that I'm dealing
with an interface and not an object. For instance if I
see a PROP_LINK that wants a TYPE_IDAU_INTERFACE I know
I need to implement an interface on some suitable object,
whereas if it were a TYPE_IDAU I'd be expecting to need
to create (or write a subclass of) a concrete object.
So I'd prefer us to settle on a convention that does
explicitly mark the interface-ness in the type name.

thanks
-- PMM