On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 3:18 AM,
<ken.ryall@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I'd really like the Nokia gang to state what they think the strategy for EDC should be, or what they are intending it for since they are investing pretty heavily in it. The one thing I think is firm is that it helps those who need to avoid GPL, and there is commercial need for that from some vendors. As I also mentioned, I'm curious whether it would make implementing a JNI debug story more easily as we have full control over what it's doing.
Doug,
Our strategy for EDC is to develop a debug framework that is perfectly tuned with Eclipse, focused on C/C++ development, has ground-up support for multi contexts, and has a modern accessible design where it is easy to develop new features entirely within the CDT community. It builds on the DSF architecture to provide core debug services and directly integrate with TCF agents that provide low level run control services. We think this adds a lot to CDT as a platform for vendors like ourselves that value these requirements. We’ve included reference implementations of EDC debuggers for Windows and Linux to make the technology more accessible to the community.
For CDT 7.0 as a product on Windows and Linux I’d like to see the EDC debugger positioned as an experimental thrill-seeker variant. While a lot of things work well it is immature overall and our team will initially be focused on supporting on-device debugging on Symbian OS. But I would like for it to be easy for people to try out and evaluate, especially if they encounter problems with CDI-GDB or DSF-GDB.
Sadly EDC doesn’t yet have anything to offer to improve the CDT debugging story on Mac OS. Since there is no gdb server or public debug API someone would have to write a Mac OS TCF agent to provide run control services. This would be an interesting project and might not be all that difficult but is not something we plan to do.
Regarding the default launcher issue: I would like to be able to switch it from CDI-GDB to DSF-GDB but as I said I don’t think we are there yet because of feature parity. I hope we can close that gap in CDT 7.0 but we should wait to see what actually gets done and decide closer to release.
Thanks, Ken. That brings us full circle. At the meeting we decided to wait and do a full judgement on the state of the integrations before making the switch. I'll follow your lead and we'll reserve EDC for future consideration. We do need to make sure DSF reaches parity with CDI before the switch, again to make sure we don't adversely affect our community. DSF was not given a blank cheque, we did set a criterea long ago and parity was the main one. I'd like us to decide by M6 so we can give it enough exposure, so let's see where we are a the next call at the first week of March.
Doug.
