On 09/01/2018 12:00, Thomas Huth wrote: > On 09.01.2018 10:58, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >> On 08/01/2018 08:23, Thomas Huth wrote: >>>>> But instead of introducing a new "-braille" parameter, maybe we should >>>>> rather keep some of the convenience "-usbdevice" possibilities around? >>>>> E.g. keep "-usbdevice braille", "-usbdevice mouse", etc. but remove >>>>> things like "-usbdevice serial" and "-usbdevice host" where the code is >>>>> rather ugly and the user do not gain much in comparison to "-device" ? >>>> That would work too. But I'm not sure why keep all the usbdevice >>>> infrastructure when we can do the same (at the price of a small cmdline >>>> incompatibility) with only 50 lines of code. >>> I'm just afraid that we will end up with more new parameters in the end >>> than just "-braille" - or do we feel confident enough that "-usbdevice >>> braille" is the only one that would need a sugared replacement? >> >> I agree that we should plan for suboptions, so it could be "-braille >> [serial|usb]" for now. > > I'm rather afraid that someone else will also complain about the removal > of the other usbdevice options, so that we'll finally end up with new > -usbhost, -usbbt and -usbyounameit convenience options... in that case > it might be better to keep "-usbdevice" instead?
We can and should say no. Sometimes we can also say yes though. :) I just think that Braille is worth a special case because a subset of our user base (blind people) will use it 100% of the time, plus it is not supported by libvirt and hence virt-manager. Paolo
