Re: [RFC] plugin/extension interface

[Bob Rossi <bob@brasko.net>]

On Fri, Dec 02, 2005 at 03:07:29PM -0800, Jim Blandy wrote:
> On 12/2/05, Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> > I really doubt that.  Short term it'd only increase the load since we
> > have to build the plug-in interface.  Long term, we still have to
> > maintain that interface.  We'll also get lots of support questions
> > where the problems are really with the third party plugins, but where
> > the bug reporter conveniently forgets to mention that he's using a
> > third party plugin.  Let's keep people out of our address space if
> > they don't want to commit themselves to providing sources and manpower
> > to maintain those sources.
> 
> The only qualification I'd make here is that GDB's current internal
> organization isn't very friendly to this kind of stuff.  A plug-in
> interface that could engender the kind of stuff I'm describing would
> have to be pretty clean, high-level, and documented.  I could
> certainly see the argument that it's too much work to bring things to
> the point where they could bring about the benefits.

I'm already in the long process of creating a level on top of GDB using
MI that allows another process to do anything it wants with GDB. IMO,
that is already the clean, high-level, documented interface that other
applications should use to communicate with GDB.

If the interface needs to change, that's where the effort should go. I
don't think providing any other plugin interface besides what's
described above even makes sense since it would be duplicating the
effort.

Bob Rossi