Re: GDB interface: MI versus API or ??

[Rick Moseley <rmoseley at redhat dot com>]

Phil Muldoon wrote:
> Rick Moseley wrote:
>
> Hi rick. Interesting reponses.
> > Marc Khouzam:
> >
> > "The new DSF-based debugging frontend that can also be used with the CDT
> > also has an MI layer.  If Frysk was to use the MI protocol, I think its
> > usage would be easier to implement for DSF.
>
> Why not implement a Frysk "module/plug-in/back-end/whatever" for DSF? 
> If CDT implements the debugger via DSF, it should not matter then?
>
> > Also, GDB is evolving the MI interface for such things as non-stop
> > debugging and multi-process debugging.  So, MI has some effort being
> > put into it.  I believe an API library would need to be defined from the
> > start, which seems to be more work, for Frysk and for DSF.
>
> Cite ;)
After seeing this response last Friday I started looking at DSF a little 
closer to see what I could find out.
> > From these responses it seems the MI is alive and well inside the 
> > Eclipse CDT.  Although it would seem to me the API approach would be 
> > more robust/full-featured, there does not seem to be any 
> > qualms/objections to using the MI protocol.  If there are new 
> > features being made to MI in the gdb community it might be the way to 
> > go if it indeed fleshes out the functionality.  We could implement 
> > the gdb MI protocol and then add "Frysk extensions" to get the 
> > additional functionality we require.
>
> It sure is, but what else is there, out-there now to compare it too?  
> I'm not against MI, or GDB (and am playing a large degree of devil's 
> advocate here), but if you ask the a bunch of MI hackers what's best 
> since sliced bread ....
I'm not sure I would classify the CDT developers as MI hackers exactly, 
although I am sure there is some bias there as they know that protocol 
well by now.  They are using the only tool they have been given to work 
with GDB.  I guess I was surprised that offering them *any* choice of 
tool their heart could desire to talk to a debugger and the chance to 
drop MI like a hot rock, they did not seem that eager to jump to another 
tool.  So, they do not seem to have a massive dislike for MI as I might 
have thought.

One thing I thought of is if we did implement an MI protocol that 
mimiced GDB's, would we pretty much automatically already have the GUI's 
that have implemented MI for GDB available for Frysk with some 
tweaking?  I don't have enough knowledge about the GDB GUI's out there 
to know for sure.
> But a very interesting set of responses. The data is good, lets hope 
> there is more of it!
>
>
> Regards
>
> Phil