On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 02:33:47PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote: > Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com> writes:
This discussion seems orthogonal to your patch. But I'm not applying it yet to give more time for discussion/review of the patch. > Is mangling array-ness into the name really a good idea? Isn't this > type matter, not name matter? I agree. It's nasty to hack the array selector into the name and will probably cause us pain down the line. > Backtracking a bit... Unlike QMP object-add, -object ) and HMP > object-add use QemuOpts. See object_create(), commit 68d98d3 "vl: add > -object option to create QOM objects from the command line", and > hmp_object_add(), commit cff8b2c "monitor: add object-add (QMP) and > object_add (HMP) command". Parameter 'id' is the QemuOpts ID, thus > bound by its well-formedness rule. > > Therefore, -object and HMP object-add only support a subset of the > possible names. > > In particular, they do not permit "automatic arrayification". > > Should QOM names be (well-formed!) IDs? Yes, I think that is sane. Are there any invalid IDs used as QOM names today? Hopefully the answer is no and we can lock everything down using id_wellformed().
pgpKJl35Tib7e.pgp
Description: PGP signature
