From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10245 invoked by alias); 2 Nov 2007 13:50:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 10237 invoked by uid 22791); 2 Nov 2007 13:50:18 -0000 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DK_POLICY_SIGNSOME,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,TW_FH 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, 02 Nov 2007 13:50:16 +0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.1) with ESMTP id lA2DoEPV032609 for ; Fri, 2 Nov 2007 09:50:14 -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 lA2DoDph015744; Fri, 2 Nov 2007 09:50:13 -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 lA2DoCxx024894; Fri, 2 Nov 2007 09:50:13 -0400 Message-ID: <472B2AC3.3080609@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2007 13:50:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (X11/20070530) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Phil Muldoon CC: Frysk Hackers Subject: Re: fhpd user interaction (and corefiles) References: <472AF5FE.2010900@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <472AF5FE.2010900@redhat.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-q4/txt/msg00100.txt.bz2 Phil Muldoon wrote: > The question here then: if the LinuxHost code has a question for the > user, how does it ask that user the question via CoreCommand? As far > as I can tell, none of the fhpd commands are interactive. As you point out, the bottom line is fstack et.al., where no interaction is possible. The create either succeeds or fails. With that in mind can i suggest considering instead how you might interact with this from a UI. For instance, would this work: ->File->Open use file browser to open a core file <> - indicates what action is going to happen next, for instance indicates the executable it will attempt to open (or don't bother) - OK attempts to open the executable or fails leaving the user with the assistant from a cli, a similar interaction might be: (fhpd) core foo Executable for not found. (fhpd) core foo exe --- the user is right OR (fhpd) core foo -noexe another might be: (fhpd) core foo Corefile .... of arch ... no executable. --- printed by fhpd using stuff from core (fhpd) exe ..the-exe... Corefile ... of arch ... executable ... --- intercede the no-exe core Each of these are built round the assumption that the code creating the core file is more predicatable (and more likely to throw an exception) for instance, interfaces with requirements such as: -- create core and must use implicit exe or fail -- create core and ignore exe -- create core and use explicit EXE Andrew