From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4397 invoked by alias); 21 Feb 2007 18:39:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 4376 invoked by uid 22791); 21 Feb 2007 18:39:26 -0000 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rgminet01.oracle.com (HELO rgminet01.oracle.com) (148.87.113.118) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 21 Feb 2007 18:39:14 +0000 Received: from rgmsgw02.us.oracle.com (rgmsgw02.us.oracle.com [138.1.186.52]) by rgminet01.oracle.com (Switch-3.2.4/Switch-3.1.6) with ESMTP id l1LIdArn007009 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2007 11:39:10 -0700 Received: from ca-server1.us.oracle.com (ca-server1.us.oracle.com [139.185.48.5]) by rgmsgw02.us.oracle.com (Switch-3.2.4/Switch-3.2.4) with ESMTP id l1LId9tn015487 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2007 11:39:09 -0700 Received: from kvanhees by ca-server1.us.oracle.com with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1HJwMv-0003zY-2H for frysk@sourceware.org; Wed, 21 Feb 2007 10:39:09 -0800 Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 18:39:00 -0000 From: Kris Van Hees To: Frysk List Subject: Question on CLI vs GUI, and today's call Message-ID: <20070221183908.GA13807@ca-server1.us.oracle.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAAI= X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAAI= X-Whitelist: TRUE X-Whitelist: TRUE X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact frysk-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: frysk-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-q1/txt/msg00157.txt.bz2 First of all, am I right that the CLI and GUI interfaces are mere shells on top of the actual debugger/monitor core that handles all actual functionality, and leaves the user interaction portion to the CLI and GUI code? That largely seems to be the case, and I just wanted to confirm that this strict separation of focus is adhered to everywhere. Which leads to another question, or comment... Especially today's call made me wonder a bit about the separation of processing core vs UI because it seemed (at least to me) that part of the discussion turned into the mechanics of stepping in the presence of multiple threads rather than the user interaction part only. Generally, when discussing UI aspects, if it is not clear what a certain button, menu item, or other element (or combination thereof) is wired to in the processing core, there is a fundamental problem. It indicates that either the separation between presentation and processing is lost, or that the behaviour at the processing level is not defined well enough to make it clear how the user should interact with it. I think it would make the calls a bit more targeted if we can recognize when the conversation becomes more about the underlying mechanics and defer that to discussion in a non-UI forum? As always, all comments are welcome. Cheers, Kris