On Sat, 09/13 19:04, Markus Armbruster wrote: > > I actually like having separate parameters for separate kinds of names. > > However, BlockdevRef appears to tie our hand: it's an anonymous union, > which means only the value is on the wire, and the receiving end uses > its type to determine which union member it is. Both kinds of names are > strings, so we can't have separate union members for them. > > Opinions?
Why wouldn't it work without distinguishing it in the QAPI side? I remember at the time of introducing node-name, it was in a separate namespace, but now it's not. Then why should the user care *whether* a name is "device" or "node-name"? Fam
