From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16431 invoked by alias); 20 Aug 2004 18:49:07 -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 16414 invoked from network); 20 Aug 2004 18:49:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lakermmtao09.cox.net) (68.230.240.30) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 20 Aug 2004 18:49:05 -0000 Received: from white ([68.9.64.121]) by lakermmtao09.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.03.02.01 201-2131-111-104-103-20040709) with ESMTP id <20040820184901.TNMK16771.lakermmtao09.cox.net@white> for ; Fri, 20 Aug 2004 14:49:01 -0400 Received: from bob by white with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1ByERg-0001c3-00 for ; Fri, 20 Aug 2004 14:49:00 -0400 Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 18:49:00 -0000 From: Bob Rossi To: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: GDB/XMI (XML Machine Interface) Message-ID: <20040820184900.GA5806@white> Mail-Followup-To: gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <20040810201440.GA24186@white> <20040819234921.GA4966@white> <20040820103420.340A64D400C@stray.canids> <20040820125443.GB5703@white> <20040820183447.GA21565@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040820183447.GA21565@nevyn.them.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-SW-Source: 2004-08/txt/msg00253.txt.bz2 On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 02:34:48PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 08:54:43AM -0400, Bob Rossi wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 03:34:19AM -0700, Felix Lee wrote: > > > 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. > > Parsing MI over and over again from scratch may be a waste of time. So > write once a library that parses MI. Then you gain most of the benefit > of having XML parsing libraries available. Why would I write it once? That would be a waste of my time. > Heck, parse it into XML if you'd like. I don't want the data to be in XML. I just want the data without writing a parser. and a protocol that is backwards compatible. This seems like a simple think to ask for. If GDB expects to have one common MI library, than it should distribute a library that is responsible for reading it's own output, and giving the user some data structures that will be backwards compatible. Thus, a library to link against. Bob Rossi