From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28085 invoked by alias); 20 Aug 2004 12:54:49 -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 28077 invoked from network); 20 Aug 2004 12:54:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lakermmtao04.cox.net) (68.230.240.35) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 20 Aug 2004 12:54:47 -0000 Received: from white ([68.9.64.121]) by lakermmtao04.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.03.02.01 201-2131-111-104-103-20040709) with ESMTP id <20040820125445.QJSX5215.lakermmtao04.cox.net@white>; Fri, 20 Aug 2004 08:54:45 -0400 Received: from bob by white with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1By8up-0001UX-00; Fri, 20 Aug 2004 08:54:43 -0400 Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 12:54:00 -0000 From: Bob Rossi To: Felix Lee Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: GDB/XMI (XML Machine Interface) Message-ID: <20040820125443.GB5703@white> Mail-Followup-To: Felix Lee , gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <20040810201440.GA24186@white> <20040819234921.GA4966@white> <20040820103420.340A64D400C@stray.canids> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040820103420.340A64D400C@stray.canids> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-SW-Source: 2004-08/txt/msg00249.txt.bz2 On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 03:34:19AM -0700, Felix Lee wrote: > 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. I think the main point behind XML is that it is human readable. Also, every XML developer knows how to read it. Meaning that, I believe it would take less time to learn how to read it, than some open source project's grammar. BTW, you don't even have to learn how to read it, because you don't have to parse it :) The only thing you need to know, is the spec. > 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. I can see that people are interested in writing front ends that parse the output of the MI. Why? Do the same people enjoy writing linked lists over and over again? Do you see my point? Parsing the output of MI is completely a waste of time. > 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. > -- This is a great point. Bob Rossi