Re: [cdt-dev] Proposed change in thread naming

[Marc Khouzam <marc.khouzam@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Well, I don't want to say "I picked C" as it should be a consensus, but yes, I prefer C :)

When you say "more aligned with JDT", I gather it is because the thread name is between square brackets like JDT?  Because the rest does not match JDT at all.  Solution C is more aligned with what CDT does now, which I thought might be better than trying to match JDT.

But in the end I want whatever is best for our users, and I'm not very good at UI stuff, so I'll go with the majority.  Anyone else have a preference between the below B or C?  IIRC, we had another vote for B already, so it is in the lead.

Thanks

Marc

---

From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] on behalf of Alena Laskavaia [elaskavaia.cdt@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: November 27, 2014 6:35 PM
To: CDT General developers list.
Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] Proposed change in thread naming

Are you saying you picked C? I still think B is better because its aligned with JDT more

On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 4:36 PM, Marc Khouzam <marc.khouzam@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi,

Thanks for the feedback.
So we've converged to (I've added all fields that I see in my Debug view):

A-
MyProcess [1530] [cores: 2,3]
  Thread [1] MyProcess 18787 [core: 3] (Suspended: Container)
  Thread [2] MyProcess 18788 [core: 2] (Running: Container)
  Thread [3] Worker 18789 [core: 3] (Suspended: Container)
  Thread [4] Heartbeat 18797 [core: 3] (Running: Container)

or

B -
MyProcess [1530] [cores: 2,3]
   Thread #1 [MyProcess] 18787 [core: 3] (Suspended: Container)
   Thread #2 [MyProcess] 18788 [core: 2] (Running: Container)
   Thread #3 [Worker] 18789 [core: 3] (Suspended: Container)
   Thread #4 [Heartbeat] 18797 [core: 3] (Running: Container)

I like A because it simply inserts the name of the thread into our existing format.
And I like B because putting the name in brackets makes it more understandable.  Also, thread names can have spaces, so it is good to have some kind of grouping symbol.
I tried to have a hybrid of the two:

C-
MyProcess [1530] [cores: 2,3]
  Thread [1] <MyProcess> 18787 [core: 3] (Suspended: Container)
  Thread [2] <MyProcess> 18788 [core: 2] (Running: Container)
  Thread [3] <Worker> 18789 [core: 3] (Suspended: Container)
  Thread [4] <Heartbeat> 18797 [core: 3] (Running: Container)

We had an internal discussion here and we found that the different grouping delimiter (<>) helps differentiate between different groups.  And although we liked #1, #2 for the id, we thought we would follow the current solution more and keep [1], [2].

Does someone disagree?
If not, this will become the new 'face' of the CDT Debug view for the next release.

Thanks!

Marc

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of Simon Marchi
> Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2014 10:54 AM
> To: cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] Proposed change in thread naming
>

> On 2014-11-26 10:39 AM, Alena Laskavaia wrote:
> > In this case second set square brackets really don't add anything,so
> > it really becomes #1. Which is fine with me too, since it is what we
> > show now anyway :)
> >
> > Another variant with JDT similar look
> >
> > 5 -
> > MyProcess [1530]
> >   Thread #1 [MyProcess] (Suspended: Container)
> >   Thread #2 [MyProcess] (Running: Container)
> >   Thread #3 [Worker] (Suspended: Container)
> >   Thread #4 [Heartbeat] (Running: Container)
>
> This suggestion is the one I prefer so far.
> _______________________________________________
> cdt-dev mailing list
> cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe
> from this list, visit https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
_______________________________________________
cdt-dev mailing list
cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev