Am 23.10.2009 01:55, schrieb Juan Quintela: > Anthony Liguori <anth...@codemonkey.ws> wrote: >> Luiz Capitulino wrote: >>> On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 10:40:54 -0500 >>> Anthony Liguori <anth...@codemonkey.ws> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Luiz Capitulino wrote: >>>> >>>>> Yeah, I agree. >>>>> >>>>> When testing migration, for example, I have to type 'migrate -d >>>>> tcp:0:4444' >>>>> several times... Maybe there's a smarter way to do this, but the monitor >>>>> macros idea seems interesting to me. >>>>> >>>> When we have QMP, we can create a QMP socket at a well known >>>> location based on the -name parameter. We could also introduce a >>>> qm command that allowed one to execute monitor commands from the >>>> shell. That allows people to write whatever crazy shell scripts >>>> they want. >>>> >>> >>> Yes. >>> >>> What about the macros idea? Are you against it? >>> >> >> I'm concerned that it's a snowball of complexity waiting to happen for >> very little benefit. >> >> I think we're trying to solve a non-existent problem. > > I fully agree. If we have a had to issue commands to the monitor, we > can use whatever shell/interpreter/... that we like.
But I can't bind a keyboard shortcut to such a script which is exactly what this thread is about... What I want to have in the end is my "VM stop" shortcut, dynamically binding keys to monitor commands is just a way to achieve this. I really hate this "You don't need this, I know it better" attitude. If it were only for the technical arguments, okay - I can understand that you don't want to add another magic key, and yes, doing it dynamically comes with some complexity. But all this talking about "non-existent problems" makes me think that you don't... really care about what users want if they are the wrong users (yes, I admit, this one is useful more likely for developers and plain qemu users than for those running their servers in KVM - but they are still users, right?) Kevin
