On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 05:21:08PM +0200, Yuval Kashtan wrote: > As I can see, > There is HUGH interest in management API for QEMU. > seemly, DBus is NOT the right solution for direct integration into QEMU as > it is not cross platform enough, pose extra dependency and (probably) not > suitable for embedded systems. > > Keeping only the "old" monitor interface with no formal interface will make > QEMU harder to integrate with as it requires extra work
The monitor does have an initial barrier to entry, but that can be addressed by providing a C API which sends & receives monitor commands. This does not require any intrusive modification of QEMU, at most incremental enhancements to make the monitor more complete. > C API is not a complete solution as it does not define well enough how will > you integrate with QEMU without changing or adding to the source.. > But combined with AVI's idea of some plug-in mechanism, which will use this > C API, it sounds like a complete and valid solution. You are now exposing the internals of QEMU as a stable ABI which has to be maintained indefinittely to avoid breaking these out-of-tree plugins. THis does not sound like a winning solution since it'll dramatically restrict the scope of future development of QEMU code. Regards, Dan. -- |=- Red Hat, Engineering, Emerging Technologies, Boston. +1 978 392 2496 -=| |=- Perl modules: http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ -=| |=- Projects: http://freshmeat.net/~danielpb/ -=| |=- GnuPG: 7D3B9505 F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 -=|
