Re: [cdt-dev] Support for "target-detach" and "target-disconnect"

[John Cortell <rat042@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

The problem here is that some debugger concepts are universally
consistent: suspend, resume, step-in, step-over, e.g.,.
Connect/disconnect/attach/detach are far from that and any attempt to
establish a consensus is going to be futile. At best, we can standardize
on what they mean for a particular backend. I'd still like to see us
standardize on those actions for gdb, but vendors not using gdb should
assign whatever meaning makes sense to them and their
technology.

John

At 01:26 PM 4/15/2010, Sergey Prigogin wrote:

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.

-sergey

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. Â 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? Â It's also confusing for an icon not match the

command one types there, and warnings, errors, notices the

debugger prints there. Â 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? Â 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? Â For example,

GDB has a setting called "set detach-on-fork". Â 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

cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx

https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev

_______________________________________________
cdt-dev mailing list
cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev