Guys, you will never build anything out of pure complain. You need to show the alternative, and prove this alternative is better, preferably with a code example.
Example 1: Me: Bitbang idea allows to implement other protocols and move this functionality to the TCL interpreter. You: But bitbang is prone to usb bottleneck. Me: Then usb interfaces will be solwer, this will work fine with GPIO. You: Why don't we make a queue that will compact bitbang operations and send as many compacted as possible? Me: Good idea, bitbang can be more efficient this way, please show me where is the example queueing code. You: Here it is I can help you with the code... Example 2: Me: I have used jtag_interface structure for my work, this structure was representing the interfaces that control the electricity on the wire. You: But we are working on a something better, its Adapter, jtag_interface is obsolete. Me: Okay, then we have starting point in the current code, and we have direction on where to go in near future. Example 3: Me: I have used jtag_interface structure for my SWD work, this structure was representing the interfaces that control the electricity on the wire, so I have extended it to match new needs. You: We don't want to use jtag_interface anymore. We want to use Adapter. Adapter is a "level up".. jtag_interface is only used for JTAG. You can create swd_interface to work with the SWD. This is something like your "Interface Feaures", but in our new design it would better name them as "Adapter Features". Me: This sounds okay, we can use Adapter layer that will include Interface and Transport. This way we can get direct communication between Target and Adpater, with no intermediate Transport layer. Also Adapter can implement transport in its own preferrable manner and make them available as Feature. You: This sounds good, Adapter layer that includes Interface and Transport. We don't want to use Features however, we want to use structures and pointers. Me: Structures and pointers are okay but they does not make code expandable dynamically and force hardcoding stuff. You: Okay, so we will hardcode core functionalities, but we will also make dynamically loadable/configrable Features possible. Me: Agree :-) You: Nice :-) I expect discussion to look like Examples above, not like "this is bad, end of story". -- CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Master Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL, ASP.NET, C# 2012, HTML5, CSS, MVC, Windows 8 Apps, JavaScript and much more. Keep your skills current with LearnDevNow - 3,200 step-by-step video tutorials by Microsoft MVPs and experts. ON SALE this month only -- learn more at: http://p.sf.net/sfu/learnnow-d2d _______________________________________________ OpenOCD-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openocd-devel
