Markus Armbruster wrote:
> It should be optional if we want to support clients that don't want it.
> I don't think coping with it would be a terrible burden on clients, but
> neither is having to ask for it. Personally, I'd make it optional.
It wouldn't be a terrible burden, but it'll be easier t
On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 18:38:57 +0100
Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Luiz Capitulino writes:
>
> > On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 17:53:38 +0100
> > Markus Armbruster wrote:
> >
> >> Luiz Capitulino writes:
> [...]
> >> > I'm thinking in something like this:
> >> >
> >> > 1. Connection is made, the greeting m
Luiz Capitulino writes:
> On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 17:53:38 +0100
> Markus Armbruster wrote:
>
>> Luiz Capitulino writes:
[...]
>> > I'm thinking in something like this:
>> >
>> > 1. Connection is made, the greeting message is sent and QMP is
>> > in 'handshake mode'
>> >
>> > 2. In this mode only
On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 17:53:38 +0100
Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Luiz Capitulino writes:
>
> > On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 18:24:24 -0600
> > Anthony Liguori wrote:
> >
> >> On 01/11/2010 06:04 PM, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
> >> >
> >> > As async messages were one of the reasons for having QMP, I thought
Luiz Capitulino writes:
> On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 18:24:24 -0600
> Anthony Liguori wrote:
>
>> On 01/11/2010 06:04 PM, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
>> >
>> > As async messages were one of the reasons for having QMP, I thought
>> > that there was a consensus that making it part of the "original"
>> > pro
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 09:16:43 +0100
Markus Armbruster wrote:
> >> Now, if everything is disabled by default and qemu might be running
> >> already, do we really need to have a handshake?
> >>
> >
> > I think it's valuable to have a discrete period of time when no
> > commands have been execu
On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 18:24:24 -0600
Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 01/11/2010 06:04 PM, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
> >
> > As async messages were one of the reasons for having QMP, I thought
> > that there was a consensus that making it part of the "original"
> > protocol was ok, meaning that they woul
Anthony Liguori writes:
> On 01/11/2010 06:04 PM, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
[...]
3. We should add command(s) to enable/disable protocol features
4. Proper feature negotiation is done in pause mode. That's, clients
interested in enabling new protocol features should start QEMU in
On 01/11/2010 06:04 PM, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
As async messages were one of the reasons for having QMP, I thought
that there was a consensus that making it part of the "original"
protocol was ok, meaning that they would be always available.
That's the only reason.
Right, but then it'
On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 12:57:15 -0600
Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 01/11/2010 12:34 PM, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
> > Hi.
> >
> > We (Markus and I) are working on getting QMP forward compatibility
> > support,
> > supported. :)
> >
> > We have a plan for it and I'd like to ask the CC'ed people to
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 12:57:15PM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 01/11/2010 12:34 PM, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
> > Hi.
> >
> > We (Markus and I) are working on getting QMP forward compatibility
> > support,
> >supported. :)
> >
> > We have a plan for it and I'd like to ask the CC'ed people
On 01/11/2010 12:34 PM, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
Hi.
We (Markus and I) are working on getting QMP forward compatibility support,
supported. :)
We have a plan for it and I'd like to ask the CC'ed people to review it.
Needless to say, but the objective here is to add new commands, argument
Hi.
We (Markus and I) are working on getting QMP forward compatibility support,
supported. :)
We have a plan for it and I'd like to ask the CC'ed people to review it.
Needless to say, but the objective here is to add new commands, arguments,
async messages and protocol features w/o breaking
13 matches
Mail list logo
