Re: [patch:MI] Observer for thread-changed

[Nick Roberts <nickrob@snap.net.nz>]

 > > In other words, I argue for notification to be designed with the view of
 > > what frontend is supposed to do with it, not with what internal detail of
 > > GDB is been reported.
 > 
 > This is a good principle, but it's not right either.  Reporting the
 > internal state of GDB is bad design, but reporting based on what
 > frontends are supposed to do is also bad design: it assumes that you
 > can think of everything a frontend might want to do.  We need to
 > report logical interface events based on GDB's state.

I agree.  I don't think that we should second guess what front ends will do.  I
think the role of MI is to provide a mechanism to report the state of GDB and
the inferior, not to provide a policy.  The front end developer can then filter
out information that he doesn't need.  However he can't factor in information
that GDB developers leave out because they consider it's not needed.

-- 
Nick                                           http://www.inet.net.nz/~nickrob