Am 02.02.2022 um 20:08 hat John Snow geschrieben:
> > I guess the relevant question in the context of this patch is whether
> > sync.py will need a similar two-phase setup as legacy.py. Do you think
> > you can do without it when you have to reintroduce this behaviour here
> > to fix bugs?
> >
>
> Hm, honestly, no. I think you'll still need the two-phase in the sync
> version no matter what -- if you expect to be able to launch QMP and
> QEMU from the same process, anyway. I suppose it's just a matter of
> what you *call* it and what/where the arguments are.
>
> I could just call it bind(), and it does whatever it needs to (Either
> creating a socket or, in 3.7+, instantiating more of the asyncio loop
> machinery).
> The signature for accept() would need to change to (perhaps)
> optionally accepting no arguments; i.e. you can do either of the
> following:
>
> (1) qmp.bind('/tmp/sock')
> qmp.accept()
>
> (2) qmp.accept('/tmp/sock')
>
> The risk is that the interface is just a touch more complex, the docs
> get a bit more cluttered, there's a slight loss of clarity, the
> accept() method would need to check to make sure you didn't give it an
> address argument if you've already given it one, etc. Necessary
> trade-off for the flexibility, though.
Hm, how about copying the create_server() interface instead? So it
would become:
(1) qmp.create_server('/tmp/sock', start_serving=False)
qmp.start_serving()
(2) qmp.create_server('/tmp/sock')
Then you get the connection details only in a single place. (The names
should probably be changed because we're still a QMP client even though
we're technically the server on the socket level, but you get the idea.)
Kevin
