Re: Integrating QOM into QAPI

[Peter Maydell]

On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 at 09:28, Paolo Bonzini <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> On 25/01/20 05:44, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
> > I try to find a good reason qom was chosen over gobject, and I can't
> > find it.
>
> The main reasons were integration with QAPI, and the object tree.
> Though everything I say here is a kind of reverse engineering of
> Anthony's brain because there aren't really any design documents besides
> what's in include/qom/object.h (and he overlooked some aspects, for
> example "unparent" was introduced a few months later).

I vagely recall that back at that time we were a lot less heavy
in our usage of glib also, so "just use the glib version of whatever"
would not have been quite as easy a sell as it might be today.
Anthony's original RFC email lists some "key differences" between
QOM and GObject, which presumably seemed to him at the time
to be sufficient to justify not using GObject:
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2011-07/msg01673.html

thanks
-- PMM