From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7991 invoked by alias); 23 Jun 2009 15:55:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 7982 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Jun 2009 15:55:57 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SARE_MSGID_LONG40,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp-out.google.com (HELO smtp-out.google.com) (216.239.45.13) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 23 Jun 2009 15:55:45 +0000 Received: from wpaz9.hot.corp.google.com (wpaz9.hot.corp.google.com [172.24.198.73]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id n5NFtfRd011487 for ; Tue, 23 Jun 2009 08:55:42 -0700 Received: from yw-out-1718.google.com (ywa6.prod.google.com [10.192.1.6]) by wpaz9.hot.corp.google.com with ESMTP id n5NFtdGt020724 for ; Tue, 23 Jun 2009 08:55:39 -0700 Received: by yw-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id 6so74417ywa.0 for ; Tue, 23 Jun 2009 08:55:39 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.90.114.20 with SMTP id m20mr174491agc.3.1245772539255; Tue, 23 Jun 2009 08:55:39 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <200906230041.n5N0fMYW019073@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> References: <20090622205935.GA5900@caradoc.them.org> <200906230041.n5N0fMYW019073@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 15:55:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Per-type architecture (Re: [10/15] Basic value access routines) From: Doug Evans To: Ulrich Weigand Cc: Daniel Jacobowitz , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-System-Of-Record: true X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009-06/txt/msg00608.txt.bz2 On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 5:41 PM, Ulrich Weigand wrote: > In fact, if it weren't that > we want to avoid excessive dependencies on XML libraries, I'd argue we should > just parse XML into a standard DOM tree representation as provided by those. > > Looking at this this way, serialization/deserialization of XML into and out > of those "DOM tree" structures *should not* involve too much GDB specifics > like GDB private data structures, but simply follow the self-describing > property of the XML format ... OOC, what "excessive dependencies" are you referring to? It seems odd to want to avoid dependencies on libraries, libraries are good. [I'm sure there's more to the story here, hence the question. :-)] *If* the issue is not technical (in the sense that if, for example, the code was GPL'd and if the code was owned by the FSF, we'd already be using it), then it might be the case that multiple projects would want such a library (thus increasing the incentive to solve the non-technical issues).