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  -=| 


Reply via email to