From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32459 invoked by alias); 15 Jun 2007 14:39:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 32451 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Jun 2007 14:39:54 -0000 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DK_POLICY_SIGNSOME,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; Fri, 15 Jun 2007 14:39:51 +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 l5FEdlrO014663; Fri, 15 Jun 2007 10:39:47 -0400 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 l5FEdlre015731; Fri, 15 Jun 2007 10:39:47 -0400 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 l5FEdkp8022230; Fri, 15 Jun 2007 10:39:46 -0400 Message-ID: <4672A4C3.4060009@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 15:04:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (X11/20070530) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Wielaard CC: frysk Subject: Re: frysk.proc.{ptrace,corefile} -> frysk.proc.{live,dead} References: <466FED51.3030804@redhat.com> <1181815036.4474.23.camel@dijkstra.wildebeest.org> <467149C9.8050509@redhat.com> <1181898053.4482.28.camel@dijkstra.wildebeest.org> In-Reply-To: <1181898053.4482.28.camel@dijkstra.wildebeest.org> 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-q2/txt/msg00292.txt.bz2 Mark Wielaard wrote: > Yes, but my point is more that pre-mature refactoring at this point > seems not a good idea. We don't seem to have all the information yet. > But maybe you do have a clear picture already. I am trying to get an > idea what we would really gain from it at this point. Which api users do > you have in mind and what are they doing now through frysk.proc (or > directly through frysk.proc.ptrace and frsyk.proc.core) that would be > better modeled through the proposed properties-based package > abstractions? > > The user visible interface is frysk.proc, the rest is internal. We could equally argue that the frysk.proc.ptrace refactoring was pre-mature. For that we discussed, agreed, and then I implemented; the result while a step forward has clear problems; perhaps I could revert it. This next step is along that path. Remember, live processes can change state and so have observers, dead processes do not. Andrew