From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:43089) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QlKvR-0001nB-SS for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 09:10:31 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QlKvQ-0006ui-NV for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 09:10:25 -0400 Received: from mail-yx0-f173.google.com ([209.85.213.173]:61390) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QlKvQ-0006ue-Kx for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 09:10:24 -0400 Received: by yxt3 with SMTP id 3so2682338yxt.4 for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 06:10:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4E2D6B3E.6020108@codemonkey.ws> Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 08:10:22 -0500 From: Anthony Liguori MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1311558293-5855-1-git-send-email-aliguori@us.ibm.com> <4E2D51A1.2080301@redhat.com> <4E2D657C.8050701@codemonkey.ws> <4E2D6AE3.10608@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <4E2D6AE3.10608@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC][PATCH 0/21] QEMU Object Model List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Kevin Wolf Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org On 07/25/2011 08:08 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote: > Am 25.07.2011 14:45, schrieb Anthony Liguori: > Okay, if it isn't possible with reasonable effort, I guess we'll have to > bite the bullet and give it a very careful manual review immediately > before the merge. > > By the way, I see that you create new directories. You probably have an > idea of what the directory structure will look like after the whole > conversion is completed. Can you share this idea with us? Just the logic extension of what we have already: block/ chrdrv/ net/ qom/ qapi/ devices/ \ pc/ | pci/ | scsi/ | etc. >> I think Foo and FooClass is better because Foo is the most common usage >> of the type and it's less characters to type. > > Maybe. But then, CharDriver is a really bad names for an instance. There > is only one driver, which made it a good name for the class until now. > Maybe CharBackend and CharBackendClass (or CharBackendDriver) would be a > more sensible replacement that follows your pattern. Good suggestion. I've been thinking that there's like to be a need for a generic Backend base class too so that would work well from a naming convention perspective. Regards, Anthony Liguori > > Kevin >