From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24952 invoked by alias); 21 Aug 2004 12:34:52 -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 24881 invoked from network); 21 Aug 2004 12:34:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lakermmtao05.cox.net) (68.230.240.34) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 21 Aug 2004 12:34:47 -0000 Received: from white ([68.9.64.121]) by lakermmtao05.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.03.02.01 201-2131-111-104-103-20040709) with ESMTP id <20040821123446.ZXYV25497.lakermmtao05.cox.net@white>; Sat, 21 Aug 2004 08:34:46 -0400 Received: from bob by white with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1ByV4y-0001sP-00; Sat, 21 Aug 2004 08:34:40 -0400 Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 12:34:00 -0000 From: Bob Rossi To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com, cagney@redhat.com, ezannoni@redhat.com, fnasser@redhat.com Subject: Re: GDB/XMI (XML Machine Interface) Message-ID: <20040821123440.GA7138@white> Mail-Followup-To: Eli Zaretskii , gdb@sources.redhat.com, cagney@redhat.com, ezannoni@redhat.com, fnasser@redhat.com References: <20040820103420.340A64D400C@stray.canids> <20040820125443.GB5703@white> <20040820183447.GA21565@nevyn.them.org> <20040820184900.GA5806@white> <20040820185159.GA22481@nevyn.them.org> <20040820192458.GB5806@white> <20040820194224.GA24407@nevyn.them.org> <20040820195928.GA6372@white> <01c48768$Blat.v2.2.2$a38a12a0@zahav.net.il> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <01c48768$Blat.v2.2.2$a38a12a0@zahav.net.il> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-SW-Source: 2004-08/txt/msg00268.txt.bz2 On Sat, Aug 21, 2004 at 01:20:33PM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 15:59:28 -0400 > > From: Bob Rossi > > > > Changing the MI output to XML would greatly reduce the amount of time > > and code written to interface with GDB. Period. I strongly believe there > > is no argument against this point. > > Strangely enough, none of the maintainers of the GDB front ends were > enthusiastic about your proposal. Perhaps that's because they already > have their MI parser written, so the issue of reducing the effort of > writing one does not bother them. Right, this is understandably so. I would also not be interested if I had already written my mi1 and mi2 parser. However, that doesn't mean it's not the correct decision. Instead of writing a new parser, they will get one for free, that they will never have to maintain. Doesn't that sound nice? > > BTW, how does one go about getting a yes/no answer to such an RFC? Do I > > need the approval of the majority of GDB contributors? maintainers? > > If you are looking for approval before you write the code, you've just > heard the relevant opinions. I believe this is all you can hope for. > Whether that is enough for you to sit down and start writing is > something you should decide on your own. > > The way to get something into GDB is to write code and then submit it > for approval. Then there are designated individuals (mentioned in > MAINTAINERS) who should review the code and either approve it or point > out the parts that should be rewritten or corrected. These designated individuals either are busy or refuse to even discuss the topic at hand. This is awfully unfriendly. > > Also, why haven't some of the maintainers of MI responded at all on this > > subject? Andrew or Elena? Fernando are you the main contact as far as > > decisions on the MI code goes? > > I'm neither Andrew nor Elena nor Fernando, but I will try to summarize > the impression I got from this discussion so far: your proposal > mentioned several problems with MI, but most of those problems can > (and IMHO should) be solved without ditching MI, and the effort to > solve those problems with XMI is not going to be smaller. One notable > example of such problems is back compatibility, but there were others. I believe that making GDB output XML would be trivial. > I agree that it would be a Good Thing if GDB would come with a > read-to-use MI parser library. If you care about easing the pains of > a GDB front-end programmer, then the project of writing such a parsing > library should sound important to you. But since you said quite > explicitly that you are not interested in such a project, I am going to have to write an MI parser, if GDB refuses to simplfy it's output. I have already been working on a project TGDB, and anyone that wants to use it to base there front ends on GDB is welcome. > I suspect > that your interest is in playing with XML rather than easing the lives > of front-end programmers out there. There's nothing wrong with your > interest in XML, of course, but you must understand that the interests > of GDB maintainers are elsewhere, and rightly so. I care nothing about XML. As I say it over and over again. If XML is outputted by GDB, it could be binary for all I care, NO parser has to be written. The job has already been done. I would not have to write a parser. I would not have to write a library. No one would. Ever. This is my point. I think that might have been my very first epilogue :) BTW, if none of the front end writers or maintainers like this idea, I will silently drop the issue. Personally, I thought many of the front end writers would appreciate such a transparent protocol. Thanks, Bob Rossi