Re: frysk.proc.{ptrace,corefile} -> frysk.proc.{live,dead}

[Andrew Cagney <cagney@redhat.com>]

Mark Wielaard wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-06-18 at 19:29 -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: 
>   
>>> That is good. But what I am missing is the actual problem statement.
>>> What exactly isn't possible today and what is possible tomorrow after
>>> such a change is made. My concern is that some of this is just
>>> refactoring for refactorings sake. That is why I ask the why and what
>>> questions.
>>>
>>>       
>> Sorry I don't follow, the but.  This is good.
>>     
>
> Try showing that it is good and what the problem it is that it solves
> with some concrete examples. An simple example of existing code and what
> it should/could be might make things a lot more concrete and clear for
> others to see which actual problem this solves.
>   

A specific example that I mentioned previously was requestAddBLAH.  live 
processes handle that, dead processes do not.

>   
>> On Mon, 2007-06-18 at 18:27 -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
>> Mark Wielaard wrote:
>>     
>>> We can certainly refactor the proc interfaces and implementation
>>> subpackages. But you are mixing two things in your plan. The renaming of
>>> existing packages and classes (which I don't see any benefit of) and
>>> exposing flaws in of the refactoring of the proc, proc.ptrace and
>>> proc.core code because there is a clear separation between interface and
>>> implementation.
>>>   
>>>       
>> Sorry, I don't follow, what do you think I am planning, and why do you 
>> think it is mixed?
>>     
>
> You don't make a clear distinction between on the one hand what exactly
> you propose to move from the proc interfaces into the ptrace and core
> implementation packages, and on the other hand the complete renaming of
> the packages plus introduction of the new live and dead concepts.
>   
Hardly, we're discussing end-goals.  There's no need to describe in 
detail intermediate steps here.

> I believe these new concepts of live and dead aren't really different
> from the ptrace vs core distinction we have now. And if so then renaming
> everything doesn't solve any actual problem, but just introduces random
> change. But your examples don't make this clear to me.
>   

Could there be confusion between a attribute such as liveness with an 
implementation choice such as ptrace.  Not unlike how Collection is the 
super object, List is a refinement, and ArrayList is a specific 
implementation choice.

> My proposal is that you first describe the separation of interface and
> implementation between proc, ptrace and core, and then if we have a good
> separation between interface packages and implementation packages then
> you introduce the live and dead property concepts based on that.
>   
And the way we do that is with the code.  If I don't like the results 
i'll fix them.

Andrew