[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [cdt-dev] DSF/CDI Launchers weirdness
|
In ideal world that would be fine, so in this world we just replace
backend from CDI to DSF
and all features are only better and all bugs are fixed. Since it is
not that ideal we have no
choice but to involve user in the choosing - new features but some old
features not working and more bugs,
or old and more robust but less features.
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 3:11 PM, Doug Schaefer <cdtdoug@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> My hope is that when the user hits run, it never asks him for anything, it
> just runs a local application determined by the context of the selection and
> assuming the application can run locally, which we should also be able to
> determine. There should never be a question on what debugger integration to
> use for run because it doesn't matter.
> I think the same should be true for Debug. We should be able to tell from
> the context of the selection what debugger to run. And that decides what
> integration to use, not the other way around. This is something I've stated
> before, and I still stand by it.
> I just think we've hijacked launch configuration types for debugger
> integrations. There should be only be one for Local Applications, and the
> choice of debugger integration is further down the pipe. We should never put
> the choice of debugger integration into the face of the user. There's no way
> they can understand the choice.
> On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 2:23 PM, Marc Khouzam <marc.khouzam@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> > [mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Doug Schaefer
>> > Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 2:18 PM
>> > To: CDT General developers list.
>> > Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] DSF/CDI Launchers weirdness
>> >
>> > I find the whole thing a bit weird. What this is showing is
>> > that the Eclipse Launch system, didn't anticipate that there
>> > would be multiple launch configurations types for a given way
>> > of launching. As there shouldn't be more than one config type
>> > to "Run" a C++ Local Application (they all do the same
>> > anyway, no?), there probably shouldn't be more than one
>> > config type to "Debug" a C++ Local Application. We've
>> > abstracted at the wrong level and that's just confusing as
>> > hell. Our users won't get it. And our vendors still won't use
>> > what we provide.
>>
>> The terminology always confuses me so I might have mis-understood
>> what you meant, but here goes:
>>
>> We only have one launch configuration type for Run:
>> "C/C++ local application".
>> After you've chosen this launch config type, you have to
>> choose which debugger integration using the hyperlink at the
>> bottom of the launch tabs.
>>
>> For Debug, it is not great but necessary.
>> But for Run? Do we really need to have that extra step?
>> I say we have a single launch delegate when using Run.
>>
>> Does it make sense?
>>
>>
>> >
>> > Sorry, just venting, and a bit sad that the situation hasn't
>> > improved any in 7.0. It's still quite a mess.
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 2:09 PM, Marc Khouzam
>> > <marc.khouzam@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > I think the problem becomes visible because you have EDC.
>> > When I don't have EDC and I select Run As, there is no prompt
>> > and the program launches using CDI. This is fine
>> > because there is actually no debugging going on.
>> >
>> > Once you have EDC, I believe the platform no longer knows
>> > which between CDI and EDC to choose, and that is why
>> > you get the prompt.
>> >
>> > So, maybe adding support in DSF-GDB for Run, may not be
>> > the right solution.
>> > Do we really want to have the user need to choose a
>> > debugger integration
>> > even for Run? Why choose between CDI, DSF-GDB or EDC,
>> > when there will
>> > be no debugging?
>> >
>> > How about a single launch delegate for Run, for all of CDT?
>> >
>> >
>> > > -----Original Message-----
>> > > From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> > > [mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
>> > Alena Laskavaia
>> > > Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 12:39 PM
>> > > To: Pawel Piech
>> > > Cc: CDT General developers list.
>> > > Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] DSF/CDI Launchers weirdness
>> > >
>> >
>> > > Well it has EDC there too in the list for Run. I
>> > don't know if it is
>> > > different but it technically I pick EDC for run
>> > instead of standard
>> > > launch.
>> > >
>> > > On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 12:35 PM, Pawel Piech
>> > > <pawel.piech@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > > > This appears to be a bug in the multiple launchers support
>> > > in platform.
>> > > > Could you file it as a bug?
>> > > >
>> > > > I think the correct behavior would be for the launch
>> > > framework to use CDI
>> > > > without prompting you whenever you select the run.
>> > > > -Pawel
>> > > >
>> > > > Alena Laskavaia wrote:
>> > > >>
>> > > >> I was playing a bit with debugger lately and work flow is
>> > > really awkward
>> > > >> for me.
>> > > >> I don't have official build I am running from the trunk
>> > > but what I see is
>> > > >> weird.
>> > > >> So looks like DSF does not have a "Launcher" (the
>> > stuff you switch
>> > > >> using link in the bottom) for Run
>> > > >> configuration, but does for Debug. So I have to pick
>> > > different ones for
>> > > >> Run
>> > > >> and Debug. So I compile my app and do Run As->Local C++
>> > > App - and it gives
>> > > >> me list which does not include DFS - so I pick standard.
>> > > When I debug
>> > > >> I have to do it again to switch to DSF. If I do opposite -
>> > > pick DFS from
>> > > >> Debug -
>> > > >> when I do Run - my launch for run - does not do
>> > anything, cannot be
>> > > >> terminated and
>> > > >> deleted, and if I open launch configuration it shows that
>> > > I use DSF -
>> > > >> which is not in the
>> > > >> list if I click on link.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Is it expected behaviour?
>> > > >> _______________________________________________
>> > > >> cdt-dev mailing list
>> > > >> cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> > > >> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
>> > > >>
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > cdt-dev mailing list
>> > > cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> > > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > cdt-dev mailing list
>> > cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> cdt-dev mailing list
>> cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cdt-dev mailing list
> cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
>
>
