From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18481 invoked by alias); 20 Aug 2004 12:47:40 -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 18473 invoked from network); 20 Aug 2004 12:47:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lakermmtao03.cox.net) (68.230.240.36) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 20 Aug 2004 12:47:39 -0000 Received: from white ([68.9.64.121]) by lakermmtao03.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.03.02.01 201-2131-111-104-103-20040709) with ESMTP id <20040820124738.LBBL12724.lakermmtao03.cox.net@white> for ; Fri, 20 Aug 2004 08:47:38 -0400 Received: from bob by white with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1By8nx-0001UC-00 for ; Fri, 20 Aug 2004 08:47:37 -0400 Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 12:47:00 -0000 From: Bob Rossi To: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: GDB/XMI (XML Machine Interface) Message-ID: <20040820124737.GA5703@white> Mail-Followup-To: gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <20040810201440.GA24186@white> <20040819234921.GA4966@white> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-SW-Source: 2004-08/txt/msg00248.txt.bz2 On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 12:09:25AM -0700, Chris Friesen wrote: > > On Aug 19, 2004, at 4:49 PM, Bob Rossi wrote: > > > > >Chris F suggested, > > He defiantly didn't see the benefit to switching to XMI, since XML > >is harder > > for him to understand than MI output. > > That's uncharitable, try: > 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. I'm sorry, I worded that bad, didn't I? I did not mean "understand" as in comprehend, anyways, thanks for correcting me. > >I don't really know where to go from here. The XML change I think is a > >no brainer. > > > > >Finally, the difference between a text based protocol and a libgdb > >interface is irrelevant > >to me. I would personally prefer the text based protocol at this point > >in time seeing that > >there is no libgdb. What stopped the production of that effort? > > Did license issues prevent adoption? I know that would likely keep me > from being able to use a libgdb. Yeah, yeah dry your eyes. ;-) Good point. Bob Rossi