Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [cdt-dev] Support for "target-detach" and "target-disconnect"

This sounds rather backwards. For an Eclipse user, GDB, EDC, or something else is just an implementation detail. It is far for important to have terminology and behavior to be consistent between C++ and Java debugging than between Eclipse and any underlying tool it happens to use.

My 2c.


On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 11:13 AM, Pedro Alves <pedro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
IMO, we shouldn't worry that much about users getting confused
by the action getting a new name/string in the IDE to match
the debug engine.  We're dealing with developers, which one
assumes to be at least a little bit flexible people.

In fact, IMO abstracting away too much the debugger below
instead of exposing it in full power is a step in the
wrong direction.

Doesn't the IDE support a console to GDB's command line
interface?  It's also confusing for an icon not match the
command one types there, and warnings, errors, notices the
debugger prints there.  If I click "disconnect" and see
some warning about "... can't detach foo ... " " .. detaching ..",
etc., then that's also not good for consistency.

Doesn't the IDE forward GDB errors and/or warnings to
message boxes?  It's also more likely to be more
confusing to users to have the warnings/errors not
match the action names than the confusion changing
the action name would generate.

What about settings/configuration pages?  For example,
GDB has a setting called "set detach-on-fork".  If you expose
that in the IDE, are you going to rename it to "Disconnect On Fork"?

Also, user manual for a full product (compile/debug/IDE) whose debug
solution is built around GDB, is more likely to call "detach" to
the detach action everywhere, not disconnect.

Consistency overall, I'd say.

Pedro Alves
cdt-dev mailing list

Back to the top