From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7914 invoked by alias); 20 Aug 2004 19:25:02 -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 7905 invoked from network); 20 Aug 2004 19:25:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lakermmtao03.cox.net) (68.230.240.36) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 20 Aug 2004 19:25:00 -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 <20040820192459.QLBM12724.lakermmtao03.cox.net@white> for ; Fri, 20 Aug 2004 15:24:59 -0400 Received: from bob by white with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1ByF0U-0001ds-00 for ; Fri, 20 Aug 2004 15:24:58 -0400 Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 19:25:00 -0000 From: Bob Rossi To: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: GDB/XMI (XML Machine Interface) Message-ID: <20040820192458.GB5806@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> <20040820184900.GA5806@white> <20040820185159.GA22481@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040820185159.GA22481@nevyn.them.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-SW-Source: 2004-08/txt/msg00260.txt.bz2 > > > 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. > > So, it would be a waste of your time to write a parser that all future > front ends could use, but not a waste of GDB developers' time to carry > out major incompatible surgery on GDB's output format for people that > already parse MI? What? I am saying that if GDB wants to stick with this self invented grammer and decides that it is obviously silly to have all of the consumers reinventing the wheel, it should write a library that parses the MI output and give it to the user in some sort of ADT. Making the protocol transparent. If this existed, I would be satisfied. I wouldn't expect anyone but myself and people that believed in the idea to carry out the surgery. I am not asking for a present. I feel that an XML approach will save developers time over the long run and that inventing a grammer to parse on output was a mistake in the first place. Is the *main* argument to stick with MI because there is already a customer base? Bob Rossi