Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> writes: > On 31/07/20 19:53, John Snow wrote: >> You have misunderstood me. >> >> The critique I am relaying, but not raising, is that we already use a >> custom JSON parser in two or more places, and so replacing one instance >> of this with a new format actually complicates QEMU instead of >> simplifies it. >> >> I disagree with this concern on the premise that moving one non-standard >> JSON usage to a standard usage is a win because it reduces the total >> number of instances of proprietary formats. >> >> Further, if we remove ALL instances of proprietary JSON, then we're back >> to the same level of complexity internally, but with a reduced level of >> complexity for outside observers. > > I think we should first build a consensus on using "real" JSON (plus > Javascript comments) for the schema, which is easy, and then somebody > can try his hands at removing the custom JSON parser. > > I wouldn't conflate the QMP and schema parsers. For example, QMP does > not need comments and schemas don't need either bigints or printf-style > % interpolation.
Seconded. QAPI schema syntax and the QMP syntax are totally separate. Heck, the whole *languages* are. They happen to use vaguely similar concrete syntax, a bit like C, Java and JavaScript do. That's all. Let's keep this thread focused on the QAPI schema language.
