I’ll take the liberty to cut one part (I agree with much of what you say elsewhere)
> On 9 Dec 2021, at 20:11, Daniel P. Berrangé <berra...@redhat.com> wrote: > > As illustrated earlier, I'd really like us to consider being a bit > more adventurous on the CLI side. I'm convinced that a CLI for > directly configurable hardware is doomed to be horrible no matter > what, if you try to directly expose all QAPI configuration > flexibilty. Whether key/value, JSON, whatever, it will become > unmanagable on the CLI because VM hardware config is inherantly > complicated. > I absolutely agree, but reach a slightly different conclusion > Thus my though that config files or QMP should be the only two > places where the full power of QAPI config is exposed. Use CLI > as just a way to interact with config files in a simple way > with templates. I would countenance that we choose only one place to ‘support’ an interface. Either “Yet Another Hardware Configuration Language” or QAPI. Rather than re-inventing that wheel I would simply suggest that we leave that to the relevant ‘user’ community (libvirt, whatever), who have specific requirements and/or existing solutions. Leaving QEMU itself to focus on improving QAPI (and migrating the CLI). Cheers Mark.
