Hi Jonathan, > Multiples solutions come to mind: > -XML > -JSON > -YAML > -Custom syntax (like GDB Machine interface* as proposed by Alexandre > Montplaisir)
I would advocate for the use of XML for the machine interface. Two reasons come to mind: 1 - The expression of hierarchy (session, events, etc.) is much easier with XML. 2 - In a recent post [1], it was decided that the configuration load and restore (for sessions) would also use XML. This will introduce a new dependency on libxml. If we were to choose yet another format for the machine interface, we would probably need to introduce another dependency to some library. > Machine interface output would be generated only with --mi option and > could contain additional information than regular output. Perhaps adding --xml option to the relevant command? This would be similar to svn machine interface [2]. Thanks, Christian [1] - http://lists.lttng.org/pipermail/lttng-dev/2013-December/022068.html [2] - http://svnbook.red-bean.com/en/1.7/svn-book.html#svn.ref.svn.sw On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 9:42 PM, Jonathan Rajotte <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello all, > > After speaking with Michel Dagenais, Geneviève Bastien, folks over at EfficiOs > and Ericsson, a machine interface for lttng-tool would be a nice feature > to have. Olivier Cotte and me will be working on MI for the > next few weeks. > > The main objective would be to reduce parsing complexity > in control tools. > ex:Regex used in TMF control service. > (org.eclipse.linuxtools.internal.lttng2.ui.views.control.service.LTTngControlService.java) > > Multiples solutions come to mind: > -XML > -JSON > -YAML > -Custom syntax (like GDB Machine interface* as proposed by Alexandre > Montplaisir) > > XML/JSON/YAML promote extensibility and ease of development for new tools > dependant on lttng-tools by being established standards. > On the other hand, they add dependencies to lttng-tools where a custom syntax > would not. > > Machine interface output would be generated only with --mi option and > could contain additional information than regular output. > > We are focusing on output right now but we may eventually add a 'mi' > command for input if necessary. > > What do you think ? > > Thanks > > > *https://sourceware.org/gdb/onlinedocs/gdb/GDB_002fMI.html > > -- > Jonathan Rajotte Julien > Chargé de laboratoire INF1995 > Membre MD6 > Polytechnique Montréal > > _______________________________________________ > lttng-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.lttng.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lttng-dev _______________________________________________ lttng-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lttng.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lttng-dev
