From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25357 invoked by alias); 27 Jan 2006 18:41:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 25349 invoked by uid 22791); 27 Jan 2006 18:41:09 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from sadr.equallogic.com (HELO sadr.equallogic.com) (66.155.203.134) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 27 Jan 2006 18:41:06 +0000 Received: from sadr.equallogic.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sadr.equallogic.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id k0RIf4pE013871 for ; Fri, 27 Jan 2006 13:41:04 -0500 Received: from M31.equallogic.com (M31.equallogic.com [172.16.1.31]) by sadr.equallogic.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with SMTP id k0RIf3ih013859; Fri, 27 Jan 2006 13:41:03 -0500 Received: from pkoning.equallogic.com ([172.16.1.169]) by M31.equallogic.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Fri, 27 Jan 2006 13:39:57 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <17370.26869.663043.743656@gargle.gargle.HOWL> Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 19:06:00 -0000 From: Paul Koning To: eliz@gnu.org Cc: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Using XML in GDB? References: <20060126055744.GA29647@nevyn.them.org> <20060127180429.GA15726@nevyn.them.org> X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-01/txt/msg00313.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Eli" == Eli Zaretskii writes: >> Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 13:04:29 -0500 From: Daniel Jacobowitz >> >> ...The biggest win of XML, for me, is that there are standard answers >> to all of these problems and standard tools for editing and >> checking XML files. Eli> Is XML the only widely used standard that supports what we want? No, it isn't. You're essentially asking for an easily extensible, flexible protocol. XML is one of those; it is the extremely verbose end of the "make it all ASCII" approach used in the Internet for decades. Then again, the same is true for the existing remote stub protocol. Another extensible protocol that comes with definition tools and checkers, but is much more compact, is SNMP. Or, more precisely, ASN.1 (the definition language) and BER/DER (the encoding rules). If one of the goals is bit efficiency of the encoding, rather than maximum verbosity, then ASN.1/DER is far better than XML. Chances are the implementation would be smaller, too. Just a thought about a rather different approach to the problem... paul