On Sep 25, 2015, at 11:42 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote: > Programmingkid <programmingk...@gmail.com> writes: > >> On Sep 24, 2015, at 2:57 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote: >> >>> Programmingkid <programmingk...@gmail.com> writes: >>> >>>> On Sep 23, 2015, at 4:35 PM, Peter Maydell wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 17 September 2015 at 21:17, Programmingkid >>>>> <programmingk...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> Add "Mount Image File..." and a "Eject Image File" menu items to >>>>>> cocoa interface. This patch makes sharing files between the >>>>>> host and the guest user-friendly. >>>>>> >>>>>> The "Mount Image File..." menu item displays a dialog box having the >>>>>> user pick an image file to use in QEMU. The image file is setup as >>>>>> a USB flash drive. The user can do the equivalent of removing the >>>>>> flash drive by selecting the file in the "Eject Image File" submenu. >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: John Arbuckle <programmingk...@gmail.com> >>>>> >>>>> I've thought a bit about this, and I really don't think this sort >>>>> of feature should be part of QEMU itself. Our general design for >>>>> how QEMU does this sort of thing is that an external program >>>>> (virt-manager, for instance) is responsible for providing most >>>>> of the UI conveniences the user wants, and QEMU's "ui" code is >>>>> a fairly simple minimum-functionality affair. I agree with Markus >>>>> that this separation of concerns has generally worked OK for us. >>>>> >>>>> I don't think OSX should be an exception to this design model: >>>>> (a) being an odd special case is never a good idea >>>>> (b) as a practical matter, I'm the only person who really reviews >>>>> OSX patches, and I don't have either the time nor the UI or OSX >>>>> expertise to deal with maintaining what will effectively be a >>>>> vm-manager grafted onto the side of QEMU >>>>> >>>>> So I think your efforts would be better spent in either porting >>>>> one of the Linux frontends like libvirt/virt-manager, or in >>>>> writing a custom OSX specific frontend. >>>> >>>> I understand that time is precious. It is one of those things >>>> that we only have a finite amount of. Every user can agree >>>> to that. This patch was pretty hairy looking with the QDict >>>> and other unfamiliar code. With that said I'm not ready to >>>> give up on this patch. It is a huge time saver for the user. >>>> Without it, the user would need to spend a lot of time >>>> investigating documentation. What's worse is the user >>>> would have to type out full paths to files they need. This >>>> would definitely be error prone and frustrating. >>> >>> Nobody is challenging the idea that many users appreciate a GUI. >>> >>> What we've been trying to tell you is where in this software layer cake >>> the GUI should be. In Peter's words, "our general design for how QEMU >>> does this sort of thing is that an external program (virt-manager, for >>> instance) is responsible for providing most of the UI conveniences". >> >> That is easy for you to say. Linux already has virt-manager. Mac OS X >> doesn't. >> Expecting someone to just go and port another program to Mac OS X is >> unreasonable. The amount of time and energy it would take to do so >> would make it hard. > > On the purely technical level, it may or may not be harder than mashing > everything into QEMU. > > On the getting-patches-merged level, mashing everything into QEMU is a > non-starter, as Peter and I have told you multiple times. > > That tips the balance somewhat. > >>>> This patch can definitely be more simplified. QMP >>>> commands could be used in place of C functions. >>>> This would reduce the patch size greatly. >>> >>> You're quite welcome to use QMP the way it wants to be used: as an >>> external interface. >>> >>> Abusing it as internal interface won't fly. >> >> The QMP interface is primarily there to help a gui interact with QEMU. That >> is what I intend to use it for. > > Nope, the QMP interface's purpose is to let other programs interact with > QEMU. > > You're free to use it for other purposes to your heart's content. Just > don't count on patches to be merged when they do things maintainers have > told you not to do :)
I did do as you said and used C functions in place of the original hmp commands. I guess there never was any hope for this patch. :(