On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 01:52:25PM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote: > Victor Toso <[email protected]> writes: > > > This patch series intent is to introduce a generator that produces a Go > > module for Go applications to interact over QMP with QEMU. > > > > The initial Goal is to have a Go module that works as intended and can > > be improved upon. I'd consider initial releases to be alpha while we > > work with utilities tools and libraries on top of this. > > > > The generated code should reside in a separated Git repository, similar > > to python-qemu-qmp. > > > > Applications should be able to consume this under qemu.org > > namespace (e.g: import "qemu.org/go/qemu"), see Daniel's suggestion: > > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2023-09/msg07024.html > > > > This is the third iteration: > > v2: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2023-10/msg04785.html > > > > I've pushed this series in my gitlab fork: > > https://gitlab.com/victortoso/qapi-go/ > > > > The fork contains some tests, including tests that were generated from > > QAPI's own examples from another generator created for testing, if you > > are interested in it: > > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2023-09/msg04946.html > > > > I've generated the qapi-go module over each commit of this series, see: > > https://gitlab.com/victortoso/qapi-go/-/commits/qapi-golang-v3-by-patch > > > > I've also generated the qapi-go module over QEMU tags: v9.1.0, v9.2.0: > > https://gitlab.com/victortoso/qapi-go/-/commits/qapi-golang-v3-by-tags > > > > -- > > > > Sorry that its been awhile between v2 and v3, I had to prioritize other > > things. I hope to get this back on track in 2025. > > > > Cheers, > > Victor > > > > * Changes: > > > > On generated go: > > - the output should be formatted as gofmt/goimports tools (Daniel) > > > > - Included QAPI's documentation too (Daniel), see: > > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2024-11/msg01621.html > > > > - Commands and Events should Marshal directly (Andrea) > > > > On python script: > > - rebased: now uses QAPISchemaBranches, QAPISchemaAlternatives > > > > - use textwrap as much as possible (Andrea) > > > > - lots of changes to make the output like gofmt does > > > > Victor Toso (8): > > qapi: golang: Generate enum type > > qapi: golang: Generate alternate types > > qapi: golang: Generate struct types > > qapi: golang: structs: Address nullable members > > qapi: golang: Generate union type > > qapi: golang: Generate event type > > qapi: golang: Generate command type > > docs: add notes on Golang code generator > > > > docs/devel/index-build.rst | 1 + > > docs/devel/qapi-golang-code-gen.rst | 548 +++++++++ > > scripts/qapi/golang.py | 1645 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > scripts/qapi/main.py | 3 + > > 4 files changed, 2197 insertions(+) > > create mode 100644 docs/devel/qapi-golang-code-gen.rst > > create mode 100644 scripts/qapi/golang.py > > This is series adds a backend that slots in cleanly, i.e. without any > changes to the core. That makes it as low-risk to merge as it gets. > > I'd like an Acked-by for the generated Go from someone familiar the kind > of software that could use it.
In my other (huge) reply to this thread I tried to provide that analysis by imagining how I would want to consume a QEMU API in Go, creating an example application and trying to see how well it fits with this design. > The -* files are all one pair of files per module (the things pulled in > with include directives), if any. We do this to avoid "touch the QAPI > schema, recompile the world." > > The generated Go is monolithic. No "recompile the world" problem with > Go? IIUC, the intent is that we dn't generate the go code as part of the regular QEMU build. IOW, most of the time it would be generate once against a release tag. If someone was actively working on QAPI schema on git master, at the same time as developing a Go application, they'll have a bit more of a repeated compile penalty. I'm not convinced that's a big enough common case to worry about modularizing though. > golang.py is somewhat big. Whether splitting it up along the lines of > the C backend would improve things I can't say. No need to worry about > that now. With the monolothic go code, generated once per release tag, Go is going to be reusing cached previously compiled objects most of the time. I think that's likely to be good enough. With regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
