On Mon, 10 May 2010 12:59:47 +0200 Jan Kiszka <jan.kis...@siemens.com> wrote:
> Luiz Capitulino wrote: > > On Fri, 07 May 2010 16:21:13 +0200 > > Jan Kiszka <jan.kis...@siemens.com> wrote: > > > >> Luiz Capitulino wrote: > >>> On Fri, 07 May 2010 13:45:03 +0200 > >>> Jan Kiszka <jan.kis...@siemens.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Hi Luiz, > >>>> > >>>> what is the recommended way of pushing larger buffers (up to 64K so far) > >>>> into a qdict? QLIST of QINT (one per byte) looks a bit heavy. I thought > >>>> about hex-encoding the content first (series of "%02X"), then > >>>> registering it as QSTRING. Or should we introduce a new type, QBUFFER? > >>> I don't think that hex-encoding the contents is so bad if your use case > >>> is > >>> very specific and isolated. > >> The focus will be first on visualizing the buffer (user_print), but who > >> knows what happens once the services is also exposed via QMP. > >> > >>> On the other hand, I do prefer a QBuffer type, specially because we can > >>> have buffer operations. > >> The q<type>.c files look sufficiently simply, guess I will add a buffer > >> type. Still, hex-encoding is probably the best representation for QMP. > > > > Yes, either as a string or (as suggested by Markus) an array of numbers, > > if you wish to expose this via QMP you (or any of us) will have to update > > the parser to support it. > > From a quick glance at the JSON spec, there is no room for a new type. I > think we have to overload an existing one and convert that into a > QBuffer (typically, we know the actual semantic). Hex string encoding is > most compact, so I went this road. But I'm open to change it into a true > type if JSON actually allows it (or we are fine with breaking it). We have capabilities support but I don't think we should use it for this case. We can have QBuffer internally and the parser can convert it to a valid json type.