From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11770 invoked by alias); 20 Aug 2004 10:34:23 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 11757 invoked from network); 20 Aug 2004 10:34:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO capitol.mail.pas.earthlink.net) (207.217.120.180) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 20 Aug 2004 10:34:22 -0000 Received: from ip216-26-76-134.dsl.du.teleport.com ([216.26.76.134] helo=stray.canids) by capitol.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 1By6iz-0001pL-00 for gdb@sources.redhat.com; Fri, 20 Aug 2004 03:34:22 -0700 Received: from stray.canids (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by stray.canids (Postfix) with ESMTP id 340A64D400C for ; Fri, 20 Aug 2004 03:34:20 -0700 (PDT) From: Felix Lee To: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: GDB/XMI (XML Machine Interface) References: <20040810201440.GA24186@white> <20040819234921.GA4966@white> In-Reply-To: on Fri, 20 Aug 2004 00:09:25 PDT from Chris Friesen Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 10:34:00 -0000 Message-Id: <20040820103420.340A64D400C@stray.canids> X-SW-Source: 2004-08/txt/msg00247.txt.bz2 Chris Friesen : > Didn't see a big benefit in using one structured data format over > the other. All things being equal, finds pages of MI easier to read > than the order of magnitude longer output that XML would be. yeah, that's my main issue with xml, it's not very human readable, and it doesn't seem particularly easy to machine process either, but the canned libraries hide most of that. this isn't a strong objection, interoperability takes precedence. I think an argument for xml would be more convincing if there were more than one debugger talking the same protocol. if the schema is sensible, it shouldn't be too hard to make the python debugger and the perl debugger and so forth speak the same xml. --