Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:78340 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 23836 invoked from network); 26 Oct 2014 15:17:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 26 Oct 2014 15:17:34 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=derick@php.net; spf=unknown; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=derick@php.net; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: unknown (pb1.pair.com: domain php.net does not designate 82.113.146.227 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: derick@php.net X-Host-Fingerprint: 82.113.146.227 xdebug.org Linux 2.6 Received: from [82.113.146.227] ([82.113.146.227:60587] helo=xdebug.org) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id BE/CA-36207-D801D445 for ; Sun, 26 Oct 2014 10:17:34 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by xdebug.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BE5C411BAF1; Sun, 26 Oct 2014 15:17:30 +0000 (GMT) Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2014 11:17:29 -0400 (EDT) X-X-Sender: derick@whisky.home.derickrethans.nl To: Weinand Bob cc: PHP Developers Mailing List In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <1414217636.2624.89.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1414229963.2624.103.camel@localhost.localdomain> User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (DEB 23 2013-08-11) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="8323329-1779609493-1414336650=:4012" Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] PHPDBG nonsense (Was: Re: [PHP-CVS] com php-src: Made phpdbg compatible with new engine: ...) From: derick@php.net (Derick Rethans) --8323329-1779609493-1414336650=:4012 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE On Sat, 25 Oct 2014, Weinand Bob wrote: > Just a minor question, Derick. If you care about phpdbg, why are you=20 > only dropping any comment about it by the time it got into php-src=20 > repo? Yes, my mistake. I should have voted -1, but as I thought there was a=20 conflict of interest, I stayed silent. > It=E2=80=99s known that all the development currently (except for=20 > master, but that just was a merge and then a pure rewrite on top of=20 > that merge, nothing related to the protocol) is going on in=20 > krakjoe/phpdbg github repo. There was now an xml-protocol branch for=20 > three weeks before it got merged into krakjoe/phpdbg#master. You had=20 > vast time to notice it and complain before, if you=E2=80=99d really have= =20 > cared. Sorry, but do you really expect people to follow some random person's=20 github repo+branch for something that gets source-dumped into php-src? > To reply to your question: why not use another debugger protocol? I=20 > had first really looked for other protocols, but none really fitted=20 > our needs. There was just DBGp which approximated our needs. > At the beginning I had tried to implement a slightly modified variant=20 > of DBGp, but it accumulated minor differences here and there=E2=80=A6 And= that=20 > then doesn=E2=80=99t make much sense again. Indeed - it's after all a documented protocol. > That was the time where we decided to implement our own protocol. I don't even see *why* you want to write a whole new remote debugger in=20 the first place. > Before you ask, an incomplete list of such differences: > > - connecting: phpdbg is the server, not the client (as opposed to what=20 > DBGp requires) And for good reasons... as it doesn't require people to do fiddly=20 command line stuff to debug multiple requests. > - no need for the proxy thing > - breakpoints: we have an opline-wise breaking (I have no idea, but=20 > maybe an IDE might want to break before the fcall is done) doesn=E2=80= =99t=20 > fit into current list of attributes > - It is under some circumstances possible to not be able to provide a=20 > full response (e.g. we=E2=80=99ve done a hard interrupt (that means, in= stant,=20 > asynchronous interrupt, even when engine is in control of it)) -=20 > 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 These three points are valid, but then there is (probably) also no=20 reason why it couldn't be added. And there is also no requirement for=20 stdout/stderr to be implemented. cheers, Derick --8323329-1779609493-1414336650=:4012--