From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27214 invoked by alias); 22 Feb 2007 21:46:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 27202 invoked by uid 22791); 22 Feb 2007 21:46:42 -0000 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 22 Feb 2007 21:46:35 +0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l1MLkTPa006684; Thu, 22 Feb 2007 16:46:29 -0500 Received: from pobox.corp.redhat.com (pobox.corp.redhat.com [10.11.255.20]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l1MLkT38029994; Thu, 22 Feb 2007 16:46:29 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (sebastian-int.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.221]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l1MLkRSc032724; Thu, 22 Feb 2007 16:46:28 -0500 Message-ID: <45DE0F2B.8090008@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 21:46:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (X11/20070102) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Kris Van Hees CC: Frysk List Subject: Re: Question on CLI vs GUI, and today's call References: <20070221183908.GA13807@ca-server1.us.oracle.com> In-Reply-To: <20070221183908.GA13807@ca-server1.us.oracle.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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/msg00158.txt.bz2 Kris, Can you be a little more specific? Yes, we need to be careful that the UI's behavior isn't defined by limitations of the core, and in that regard, I thought the discussion was very positive. It was most satisfying to be in on a discussion that at no stage limited the UI possibilities due to to limitations further down. Instead the talk seemed to focus on identifying semantics that would be clear to a user - for instance separate continue-thread and continue-threads buttons. And with that decided, they can be quickly and efficiently implemented using the core. The internals discussion I noted was on the details of "advance-a-line" when in a non-inner frame; there the discussion was highlighting the confusion in some of the operations, for instance how "step" applied to the inner-most frame and not the currently selected frame. Recognizing that led to the decision to enable "advance" but not "step" when a non-inner frame is selected. Andrew Kris Van Hees wrote: > 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 >