One detail I forgot to mention (that made me want to add the <> of format C) is that for systems that don’t provide the thread names,
the B format look like this:
B -
MyProcess [1530] [cores: 2,3]
Thread #1 18787 [core: 3] (Suspended: Container)
Thread #2 18788 [core: 2] (Running: Container)
Thread #3 18789 [core: 3] (Suspended: Container)
Thread #4 18797 [core: 3] (Running: Container)
This will be a rare case on Linux, but for Windows, it will always look like:
B -
MyProcess [1530]
Thread #1 0 (Suspended: Container)
Thread #2 0 (Running: Container)
Thread #3 0 (Suspended: Container)
Thread #4 0 (Running: Container)
I wasn’t a big fan of having just a space between the thread id digit and the OS id digits, but I’m also not too bothered by it. I wanted to point it out so
that you had all the info.
I’ve posted a one-line patch that implements B. People can try out and comment on it:
https://git.eclipse.org/r/#/c/37276/
Thanks
Marc
From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Marc Khouzam
Sent: Friday, November 28, 2014 7:23 AM
To: cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] Proposed change in thread naming
Looks like B is clearly more popular. I'm glad when there's clear feedback like this. I'll modify my patch to follow B.
Once committed we will still have about two months before the release so it can still be adapted if something else comes up.
Thanks everyone
Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com)
-----Original Message-----
From: Sergey Prigogin [eclipse.sprigogin@xxxxxxxxx]
Received: Friday, 28 Nov 2014, 0:43
To: CDT General developers list. [cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] Proposed change in thread naming
From pure aesthetic reasons I like B more than C.
On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 5:28 PM, Marc Khouzam <marc.khouzam@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.
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
_______________________________________________
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
|
