On Wed, 2007-06-13 at 09:12 -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> This picks up an earlier refactoring, where the specific instances of a 
> Host et.al. were moved to sub-packages.  As I noted back then, the 
> sub-package names, in hindsite, weren't the best choice - reflecting 
> implementation (using ptrace) rather than properties (live or dead).
> 
> The intent is to rename frysk.proc.{ptrace,corefile} -> 
> frysk.proc.{live,dead}

Could you explain a bit more what kind of public interface (differences)
you see between these two packages? How would it compare with the public
frysk.proc interface for Tasks?

My feeling is that it isn't a good idea to just rename the
implementation packages ptrace, corefile to these properties you find
more appealing. You should layer the properties on top of the
implementation techniques.

There might be more implementations later like utrace and/or some
userspace /proc implementation layered on top of utrace that Chris is
working on. But we will still use ptrace for systems that don't support
utrace (yet). And with some magic we can probably give the core file
implementation some of the live properties by emulating memory, register
access and instruction stepping. So multiple implementations might map
to different instances of these properties.

Cheers,

Mark