Guess I had just never seen that format before - thanks for clarifying! I committed the revisions to the trunk in r21285 - see what you think... Ralph
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 1:55 PM, Greg Watson <g.wat...@computer.org> wrote: > Ralph, > Both my proposals are correct XML and should be parsable by any conforming > XML parser. Just changing the tags will not work because any text that > contains "&", "<", or ">" will still confuse an XML parser. > > Regards, > > Greg > > On May 26, 2009, at 8:25 AM, Ralph Castain wrote: > > Yo Greg > > I'm slow, but it did hit me that there may be a simpler solution after all. > I gather that the problem is that the user's output could have tags in it > that match our own, thus causing tag-confusion. True? > > My concern is that our proposed solution generates pidgin-xml which could > only ever be translated by a specially written parser. Kinda makes xml a > little moot in ways. > > What if we simply change the name of our tags to something ompi-specific? I > could tag things with <ompi-stdout>, for example. This would follow the > natural naming convention for internal variables, and would avoid any > conflicts unless the user were truly stupid - in which case, the onus would > be on them. > > Would that resolve the problem? > Ralph > > > On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 5:42 AM, Ralph Castain <r...@open-mpi.org> wrote: > >> >> >> On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 9:10 AM, Greg Watson <g.wat...@computer.org>wrote: >> >>> Ralph, >>> >>> In life, nothing is ever easy... >> >> >> :-) >> >> >>> >>> >>> While the XML output is working well, I've come across an issue with >>> stdout/stderr. Unfortunately it's not just enough to wrap it in tags, >>> because it's possible that the output will contain XML formatting >>> information. There are two ways to get around this. The easiest is to wrap >>> the output in "<![CDATA[" and "]]>". This has the benefit of being >>> relatively easy, but will fail if the output contains the string "]]>". The >>> other way is to replace all instances of "&", "<", and ">" with "&", >>> "<", and ">" respectively. This is safer, but requires more >>> processing. >>> >>> Thoughts? >> >> >> "Ick" immediately comes to mind, but is hardly helpful. :-) >> >> I am already doing some processing to deal with linefeeds in the middle of >> output streams, so adding these three special chars isn't -that- big a deal. >> I can have a test version for you in the next day or so (svn trunk) - I am >> on reduced hours while moving my son (driving across country). >> >> Let's give that a try and see if it resolves the problem... >> >> >> >>> >>> >>> Greg >>> _______________________________________________ >>> devel mailing list >>> de...@open-mpi.org >>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel >>> >> >> > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list > de...@open-mpi.org > http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel > > > > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list > de...@open-mpi.org > http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel >
