Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:78325
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain hotmail.com designates 65.55.111.157 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <BLU436-SMTP18776034F3EACCDC8519BA3E2900@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.0 \(1990.1\))
In-Reply-To: <CAEZPtU7N8rJRRj3YWOYE5rx4bZfvWWybdhr4U+Ua7utCb7O+vw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2014 13:00:15 +0200
CC: Joe Watkins <pthreads@pthreads.org>,
 PHP Developers Mailing List <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
References: <php-mail-d1dee1060d0e519b421e241f31037078549681831@git.php.net> <alpine.DEB.2.11.1410242103530.4012@whisky.home.derickrethans.nl> <1414217636.2624.89.camel@localhost.localdomain> <CAEZPtU70tZLPxhX-swOhRKH1h=ALvJxodpSGA4yCm9tBWA4cjA@mail.gmail.com> <1414229963.2624.103.camel@localhost.localdomain> <CAEZPtU7N8rJRRj3YWOYE5rx4bZfvWWybdhr4U+Ua7utCb7O+vw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Derick Rethans <derick@php.net>,
 Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] PHPDBG nonsense (Was: Re: [PHP-CVS] com php-src: Made phpdbg compatible with new engine: ...)
From: bobwei9@hotmail.com (Weinand Bob)

Just a minor question, Derick. If you care about phpdbg, why are you =
only dropping any comment about it by the time it got into php-src repo? =
It=E2=80=99s known that all the development currently (except for =
master, but that just was a merge and then a pure rewrite on top of that =
merge, nothing related to the protocol) is going on in krakjoe/phpdbg =
github repo. There was now an xml-protocol branch for three weeks before =
it got merged into krakjoe/phpdbg#master. You had vast time to notice it =
and complain before, if you=E2=80=99d really have cared.

To reply to your question: why not use another debugger protocol?
I had first really looked for other protocols, but none really fitted =
our needs. There was just DBGp which approximated our needs.
At the beginning I had tried to implement a slightly modified variant of =
DBGp, but it accumulated minor differences here and there=E2=80=A6 And =
that then doesn=E2=80=99t make much sense again.
That was the time where we decided to implement our own protocol.

Before you ask, an incomplete list of such differences:
- connecting: phpdbg is the server, not the client (as opposed to what =
DBGp requires)
- no need for the proxy thing
- breakpoints: we have an opline-wise breaking (I have no idea, but =
maybe an IDE might want to break before the fcall is done) doesn=E2=80=99t=
 fit into current list of attributes
- It is under some circumstances possible to not be able to provide a =
full response (e.g. we=E2=80=99ve done a hard interrupt (that means, =
instant, asynchronous interrupt, even when engine is in control of it)) =
- DBGp provides no mechanism to handle it
- stdout, stderr commands also don=E2=80=99t really work with phpdbg =E2=80=
=94 it=E2=80=99s always redirect mode
- =E2=80=A6

Further, but not the main reason why we didn=E2=80=99t use it, we=E2=80=99=
d have had to implement another commands lexer, parser and interpreter =
alongside our current commands. DBGp commands aren=E2=80=99t exactly =
user-friendly; they=E2=80=99re designed to be used by a machine.
It made the whole implementation a lot easier to not use a fork of DBGp =
adapted to our needs. (at the time we realized we couldn=E2=80=99t =
really use DBGp)

So, we=E2=80=99ve introduced a new protocol. I didn=E2=80=99t try to =
make a protocol compatible with any future debugger; each debugger has a =
bit his special needs and you cannot suit everyones needs.

Bob

p.s.: And yes, PhpStorm was involved, a huge thanks to them for the =
precious feedback they=E2=80=99ve given me for the last three weeks.

> Am 25.10.2014 um 11:45 schrieb Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com>:
>=20
> On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 4:39 PM, Joe Watkins <pthreads@pthreads.org> =
wrote:
>=20
>> Pierre,
>>=20
>>        I wasn't involved in the conversations during it's development =
very
>> much. You will have to wait for bob or someone from the phpstorm team =
to
>> fill in the blanks. Suffice to say that they found a reason to work =
on a
>> new protocol, details I don't know.
>>=20
>>        It had it's own remote protocol when it was merged, but it =
turned out
>> to be pretty useless for those people interested in using it =
remotely.
>>=20
>>        This is only a development of that original feature.
>>=20
>>        I of course recognize that we are in some sense representative =
of the
>> PHP project, however, we are talking about words like awesomesauce, =
not
>> profanity, or anything offensive whatever.
>>=20
>>        Bob done all the work on this, in record time. It's totally =
crappy that
>> he'll wake up today to this nonsense, he should be feeling pleased =
with
>> himself. He worked very hard on it.
>=20
> Cannot agree more. I very much like phpdbg and really appreciate all
> the aweome work you guys have put in it. I am only trying to
> understand this whole protocol thing, in the most objecitve way :). I
> did not know phpstorm was involved either, that makes me feel better
> about it. They know very well what is needed and have a very large
> experience in this area. I am convinced things will be clear soon :)
>=20
> --=20
> Pierre
>=20
> @pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org