Re: GNOME::Debugger::Commander proposal

[Elliot Lee <sopwith redhat com>]

On 3 Oct 1999, Dave Camp wrote:

> Elliot Lee <sopwith@redhat.com> writes:
> 
> > > We did this because this interface aims to be asynchronous.  You will send
> > > a set_breakpoint command, and at some point in the future, you will get
> > > a "breakpoint set" event on the event channel. 
> > 
> > This is going to add a lot of complexity for no apparent reason.
> 
> There is a very good reason.  There are a number of things that need to 
> be informed of an added breakpoint.  The editor needs to know, so that it
> can put up a breakpoint indicator.  The breakpoint manager needs to know.
> 
> The one object that always knows when a breakpoint is added is the program
> object.  So it becomes the program object's responsibility to notify 
> interested components (via the event channel) that a breakpoint has been 
> added.

This isn't a good reason to make it asynchronous, though. You can still do
notification without making it async.

By returning the breakpoint number from the operation invocation, you give
the caller the option of using the return value OR the async notification.
I like having options. :)

-- Elliot					http://developer.gnome.org/
The first thing a programmer needs to admit is that any program is by far
more complex than his own mind. Thats why he partitions it into neat
pieces and avoids complexity.