| Re: [platform-debug-dev] Memory View Infrastructure Review: Part 1 |
Hi -
To help you display your renderings, I am going to propose allowing debug
implementers to show renderings in the Memory View using a split pane. I
have played around a little to have the Memory View handle rendering
events. Here's a screen capture of a prototype:
(Embedded image moved to file: pic17075.jpg)
In the "Super Memory View", the view uses a sashform to display a memory
view and a rendering view. On the left, the view shows a memory block in
raw hex format. On the right, the view shows all the renderings that are
associated with the memory block being shown on the left. You can have
multiple memory blocks from a debug session. Each memory block can have
multiple renderings.
I am going to provide definitions to the standard rendering types: ASCII,
EBCDIC, Signed Integer and Unsigned Integer. However, these rendering
types will not be bound to any memory block. You will have to bind the
renderings to your own memory block type. I do not want to force every
debug adapters to take these renderings.
One challenge to this approach is that it is unclear where a rendering
should be displayed. For example, suppose you want to define a rendering
type that is only to be displayed by a rendering view and not the Memory
view. (e.g. you want to show your disassembly rendering in a special
rendering view.) How can we allow debug implementers to specify where a
rendering should be displayed? How can the Memory view figure out that it
should not be displaying this special rendering type. To solve this
problem, I propose to introduce another element, viewBinding, in the
memoryRenderings extension point. This element consist of a rendering id
and a list of view ids. The view ids describe where a rendering type should
be displayed. Before displaying a rendering, a rendering view should
check that its view id is listed in the viewBinding element of the
rendering's type. This viewBinding element is optional. If there is no
viewBinding element defined for a rendering type, the rendering type is
bound to the Memory view by default.
With this new approach, you can easily display standard renderings in the
Memory View. All you have to do is to bind the rendering types to your
memory blocks. Optionally, you can create fancy rendering types and special
rendering views.
Let me know what you think about this design. Thanks...
Samantha
"Mikhail
Khodjaiants"
<mikhailk@xxxxxxx To
> <platform-debug-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: cc
platform-debug-de
v-admin@eclipse.o Subject
rg Re: [platform-debug-dev] Memory
View Infrastructure Review: Part 1
10/08/2004 11:07
AM
Please respond to
platform-debug-de
v
Samantha,
Thanks for your reply. What I am trying to do is to find a compromise (as
Thomas mentioned in his posting) between the "traditional" memory
presentations used by many IDE's and your approach. I like the idea of
having special rendering views, especially for "exotic" renderings (viewing
memory as an image is a good example).
This is what I suggest. Instead of using the raw hex format exclusively to
show a memory block in the Memory view, provide a way to use a
client-specified rendering and allow to change it dynamically. There will
be
only one view tab per memory block in the Memory view. And the clients can
implement as many rendering views as they wish.
Using this approach I can implement the "traditional" renderings (hex,
hex+ASCII, decimal, float, etc) and switch between them in the same view
tab
of the Memory view and I can also have a special rendering view to display
the same block as a disassembly.
Regarding "getPaddedString", I think that it should be moved to the
presentation level.
Thank you,
Mikhail
----- Original Message -----
From: "Samantha Chan" <chanskw@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <platform-debug-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2004 6:54 PM
Subject: Re: [platform-debug-dev] Memory View Infrastructure Review: Part 1
>
>
>
>
> Hi Mikhail -
>
> Thanks very much for your feedback. Here's my response to your comments.
>
> The Memory View is supposed to show a memory block in raw hex format.
The
> renderings are supposed to be shown in a separate view. I have
> experimented with putting renderings into the Memory View. However, I
> found it to be confusing and limiting.
>
> Firstly, having renderings show up in the Memory View makes the view
> confusing and hard to navigate. The Memory View currently shows all
> memory
> blocks related to the current debug session. If the view also displays
> all
> the renderings for the memory blocks, the view gets very clustered.
> Imagine having 3 memory blocks and 2 renderings for each of them, that's
> already have 6 tabs in the view! Having so many tabs at the same time
> makes the view hard to navigate. When switching between renderings,
> finding
> a rendering belonging to a particular memory block is very difficult.
> (There are too many tabs, and as a result, the tabs cannot show the
entire
> tab name.)
>
> Secondly, having a separate rendering view allows the user to see more
> than
> one rendering at a time. If we have put the renderings into the Memory
> View as well, then the user is limited to look at rendering one at a
time.
> However, user often finds it useful to see a memory block in its raw hex
> format as well as other rendering formats at the same time. So, I do not
> think putting such limitation onto the user is such a good idea.
>
> Having a separate rendering view gives debug implementers the flexibility
> to create a rendering view that is suitable for their needs. It's up to
> the
> developers to figure out what a rendering really means. For example, you
> may want to display your ASCII rendering with one code page while someone
> else may wish to display the same renderingt in another code page. This
> is
> why the ASCII and decimal renderings were not considered as standard
> renderings.
>
> Looking at your note, it is not clear to me what you are looking for in
> terms of displaying renderings. Are you saying that we should also
display
> renderings in the Memory view? Are you trying to get the Memory View to
> show the default renderings defined for a particular memory block?
Please
> clarify.
>
> "getPaddedString" is for getting a string to represent any byte that is
> unavailable for display. I thought it should be something that's
> customizable. This string should also be consistent across all
renderings
> from the same debug session or IMemoryBlockRetrieval. That's why I have
> made this method part of the IExtendedMemoryBlockRetrieval interface.
Are
> you thinking that this method belongs more to the UI and should be made
> part of the IMemoryBlockModelPresentation interface instead?
>
> Thanks...
>
> Samantha
>
>
>
>
> "Mikhail
> Khodjaiants"
> <mikhailk@xxxxxxx To
> > <platform-debug-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent by: cc
> platform-debug-de
> v-admin@eclipse.o Subject
> rg Re: [platform-debug-dev] Memory
> View Infrastructure Review: Part 1
>
> 10/07/2004 02:03
> PM
>
>
> Please respond to
> platform-debug-de
> v
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> We (QNX) have concerns regarding the UI portion of the proposed model.
> The idea of contributed renderings is excellent, but having special views
> to
> present the standard renderings as ascii, decimal, etc is very unusual.
> Currently the Memory view presents the data using the hardcoded Hex
> rendering and allows only one tab (rendering) per memory block. Is there
> any
> reason for this? Why the default renderings defined for a particular
> memory
>
> block type can't be used to present the data?
>
> I have also minor comments for the core part.
> The "IExtendedMemoryBlockRetrieval" interface contains the
> "getPaddedString"
> method. Why this method is included in the core?
> And the methods of the "IMemoryBlockListener" interface begin with
> uppercase
> letters.
>
> Thanks, Mikhail
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Darin Wright" <Darin_Wright@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <platform-debug-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 3:36 PM
> Subject: [platform-debug-dev] Memory View Infrastructure Review: Part 1
>
>
> Samantha,
>
> I have read/reviewed the support in org.eclipse.debug.core relating to
the
> memory view infrastructure: i.e. extension point, classes and interfaces.
> I want to be sure that I have a clear understanding of the core
> infrastructure before I move on to the UI portion of the infrastructure.
> Since there may be other interested parties, I suggest we conduct the
> review on this mailing list in an open fashion.
>
> To start, here's my understanding of the "memory view model": Arbitrary
> memory blocks can be retrieved from debuggees (this was always part of
the
> model). A memory block can be rendered in N different ways (N >= 0). A
> memory block has a data type associated with it which defines the type of
> data contained in the memory block - for example, character data,
> numerical data, or image data. The types of memory are open ended and
> client defined (however, the platform could provide some renderings for
> common types such as ASCII). The monitoring of memory blocks can be
> expensive (in terms of size and communication with a debuggee). Thus, a
> memory block manager is used to manage actively monitored memory blocks.
> Similarly, since the mapping of memory block types to possible renderings
> is 1:N, there is a memory block rendering manager that manages the active
> renderings of currently monitored memory blocks. A memory block
> implementation can be responsible for change notification itself (i.e.
> notification of changes in its bytes), or it can let the client (memory
> view) manage/compute changes.
>
> Here's a list of design issues that need to be considered (please let me
> know your opinion):
> * The memory renderings extension point uses the fully qualified name of
a
> Java class to identify types of memory blocks. This is used to bind
memory
> blocks to default renderings and available renderings. Using a class name
> is fragile and inflexible (i.e. changing an implementation class name
> breaks extension points). It is also complex since the current
> implementation uses the class/interface hierarchy to determine all
> renderings for a memory block. Instead we should define an additional
> method IExtendedMemoryBlock.getMemoryBlockType(), which returns a string
> uniquely identifying the memory block type (i.e. its content/data type).
> Is there a reason that we need complexity of multiple inheritance to
> define memory block types?
> * There is confusion in the naming scheme for the memory renderings
> extension point and implementation interfaces/classes. The extension
point
> is called "memoryRenderings", however the IMemoryRendering interface is
an
> actual instance of a rendering, not an extension. I think the "type
> pattern" which is used commonly in the debug platform should also be used
> here. That is, the extension point should be renamed to
> "memoryRenderingTypes" to represent a class of renderings. Then, a memory
> rendering type can have a factory to create renderings (instances) of its
> type. IMemoryRendering will represent an actual rendering (as it does
> now), and IMemoryRenderingInfo will be renamed to IMemoryRenderingType.
> * The rendering_property element is a sub-element of a rendering element,
> and it is thus redundant to specify a renderingId (it is inherent in the
> rendering element it is a child of). The attribute should be removed. The
> memory renderings manager treats the property elements as both top-level
> elements and children elements when initializing extension point
> information - but only one format should be allowed (i.e. only as a child
> element of a rendering element).
> * Memory blocks have an undocumented lifecycle (which should be
> documented). The delete() method is called when the block is removed from
> the memory block manager, but there is no corresponding init() when the
> block is added (this method should be added, and to be consistent with
> other lifecycle methods, delete() should be renamed to dispose()). Also
> doc that memory blocks are automatically disposed (removed) from the
> manager when their target terminates. Memory renderings have a similar
> lifecycle that needs to be documented - i.e. renderings are automatically
> removed for terminated targets, and for removed memory blocks. Should
> renderings have lifecycle methods too?
>
> Other questions:
> * Are rendering properties optional in a rendering extension?
> * What does it mean to use a default rendering factory for a rendering
> extension? (Answer from reading code: it means that the rendering is
> created with the same memory block as the original. I suppose this means
> that a factory can change the bytes in the memory block? Is that the sole
> purpose of a rendering factory?)
> * The factory specified for hex renderings is ill-specified in plug-in
XML
> ? it refers to a non-existant class
> (org.eclipse.debug.internal.ui.views.memoryHexRenderingFactory - note the
> missing "." between memory and HexRenderingFactory). This means the
> default factory is being used. However the rendering that the hex factory
> creates (HexRendering) is no different than a default rendering. So why
> does it exist?
> * Can one provide non-textual renderings? For example, render bytes as an
> image? (I didn't get to the UI code yet, but I presume this is possible)
> * What types of rendering properties are used/supported? What are dynamic
> renderings? So far, I can see only this explicit use of properties, but
> it?s not clear to me what a dynamic rendering is.
>
> I did not change any code yet, but I modifed the memoryRenderings schema
> to reflect my understanding of things:
> * I modified the wording in the memoryRenderings schema to note that the
> extension point becomes public in 3.1, and added references to the memory
> block type identifier. Deprecated the memoryBlockClass attribute of the
> default renderings and rendering binding elements. Removed renderingId
> from the renderingProperty element.
>
> Other review notes:
> * As a matter of style/consistency with other extension points, the names
> of elements in the memoryRenderings extension point should be changed
from
> "rendering_property" to "renderingProperty", etc.
> * An example extension should be included in the schema (in an Example
> section), and API information should be provided in the API section -
i.e.
> describing the API references from the example.
> * The "Supplied Implementation" section should describe what the debug
> platform provides - i.e. a HEX rendering.
> * I have other review notes for the code (i.e. written on printouts), not
> included here
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Darin
> _______________________________________________
> platform-debug-dev mailing list
> platform-debug-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/platform-debug-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> platform-debug-dev mailing list
> platform-debug-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/platform-debug-dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> platform-debug-dev mailing list
> platform-debug-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/platform-debug-dev
>
_______________________________________________
platform-debug-dev mailing list
platform-debug-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/platform-debug-dev
Attachment:
pic17075.jpg
Description: JPEG image
