Daniel P. Berrangé <berra...@redhat.com> writes: > On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 03:42:52PM +0100, Mark Burton wrote: >> I think we’re talking at cross purposes, and probably we agree (not sure). >> I’ll top quote to try and explain my point of view. >> >> I think there are two discussions being mixed: >> 1/ A discussion about improving the CLI. (Having a new one, etc etc) >> 2/ A discussion about supporting a low level, and complete, API that can be >> used by “management layers” (QAPI). >> >> I think this also gets mixed up with the discussion on migrating the CLI to >> use the low level API. >> >> I want to focus on the low level API. >> >> I dont see why we’re discussing a ‘high level’ thing when, for now, we have >> to support the CLI, and we have work to do on QAPI. > > We're discussing both because we're setting out what our end goal is > to be, and that end goal should be expected to cover both use cases. > >> If somebody wants to build a new CLI, with a new ‘high level’ >> interface, using QAPI - let them! > > This is too weak of a statement, as it implies that a replacement > high level interface is optional and not important for the overall > project. I don't believe that to be the case, so I'm saying that > our design & impl plan has to demonstrate how we intend to cover > both deliverables or use cases. We can't simply ignore the high > level API saying it is someone else's problem to worry about.
Seconded.