[MI] -break-insert: (a)synchronous?

[Keith Seitz <keiths@redhat.com>]

Hi,

Ok, I believe that there was some general consensus that we want
asynchronus event notifications. Do we also want only one channel for the
notification of these events?

It seems to me that we've got ways to communicate the breakpoint-create
event: events and commands. Right now, -break-insert overrides the event
handlers so that it can grab the data about the breakpoint when it is
created, but inserting a breakpoint via another interpreter (like the
console) will send something slightly different:

(gdb)
-break-insert main
^done,bkpt={number="1",type="breakpoint",disp="keep",enabled="y",addr="0x08075056",func="main",file="../../src/gdb/main.c",line="734",times="0"}
(gdb)
-interpreter-exec console "break captured_main"
During symbol reading, couldn't parse type; debugger out of date?.
During symbol reading, bad structure-type format.
*"breakpoint-create,number=1"
Breakpoint 1 at 0x80743ba: file ../../src/gdb/main.c, line 122.
^done
(gdb)

(Ok, so we could also just add the "bkpt=..." info that is being used in
-break-insert onto this command, but in any case, we get no "event" when
inserting via -break-insert.)

I would prefer that we use only event notifications, of course.

That way, the the UI could call -break-info on these events to collect
the information. This way, I only have to write one parser to deal with this
event. (Actually, if I had to deal with both, I would just grab the
breakpoint number from the output of -break-insert.)

Am I being too aggressive/naive?
Keith