From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17975 invoked by alias); 20 Aug 2004 19:42:27 -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 17964 invoked from network); 20 Aug 2004 19:42:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 20 Aug 2004 19:42:25 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.34 #1 (Debian)) id 1ByFHM-0006Ml-Sb for ; Fri, 20 Aug 2004 15:42:24 -0400 Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 19:42:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: GDB/XMI (XML Machine Interface) Message-ID: <20040820194224.GA24407@nevyn.them.org> 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> <20040820192458.GB5806@white> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040820192458.GB5806@white> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i X-SW-Source: 2004-08/txt/msg00261.txt.bz2 On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 03:24:58PM -0400, Bob Rossi wrote: > > > > 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. That's what I was suggesting you do - write that library. > 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? There's no "main" argument, but there seem to be lots of existing arguments. Myself, I don't have much reason to care, but I agree with Chris that typiing XML by hand is a real pain, but MI is manageable (and I do it periodically). I don't think that using XML would change anything. Several people have already presented my opinion better than I could. -- Daniel Jacobowitz