Re: Redesign of QEMU startup & initial configuration

[Markus Armbruster]

Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com> writes:

> On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 03:42:52PM +0100, Mark Burton wrote:
>> I think we’re talking at cross purposes, and probably we agree (not sure). 
>> I’ll top quote to try and explain my point of view.
>> 
>> I think there are two discussions being mixed:
>> 1/ A discussion about improving the CLI. (Having a new one, etc etc)
>> 2/ A discussion about supporting a low level, and complete, API that can be 
>> used by “management layers” (QAPI).
>> 
>> I think this also gets mixed up with the discussion on migrating the CLI to 
>> use the low level API.
>> 
>> I want to focus on the low level API. 
>> 
>> I dont see why we’re discussing a ‘high level’ thing when, for now, we have 
>> to support the CLI, and we have work to do on QAPI.
>
> We're discussing both because we're setting out what our end goal is
> to be, and that end goal should be expected to cover both use cases.
>
>> If somebody wants to build a new CLI, with a new ‘high level’
>> interface, using QAPI - let them!
>
> This is too weak of a statement, as it implies that a replacement
> high level interface is optional and not important for the overall
> project. I don't believe that to be the case, so I'm saying that
> our design & impl plan has to demonstrate how we intend to cover
> both deliverables or use cases. We can't simply ignore the high
> level API saying it is someone else's problem to worry about.

Seconded.