Re: Redesign of QEMU startup & initial configuration

[Mark Burton]

> On 14 Dec 2021, at 16:12, Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> 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

“Replacement” 
        So long as thats really what you want. 

Cheers
Mark.

>> 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.
>