Re: Proposal for GSoC 2011 - Python based scripting front end for Nemiver

Seemanta Dutta <seemanta gmail com> a écrit:

> Thanks a *lot* for replying to my email so promptly!

My pleasure :-)

>> I guess ultimately this means exposing key Nemiver interfaces like
>> IDebugger to the [Python] interpreter's environment.
>    Do you want me to edit my proposal and mention this thing about the
> IDebugger within the submitted proposal ?

To be honest I wasn't sure how updating the melange bits was supposed to
happen so I went to ask.

And apparently, you are indeed supposed to update the submitted proposal
as we discuss :-) So yeah, I'd say it'd be good to mention it there

>> Indeed.  Many people have expressed the need of having a command line
>> console in Nemiver.  Maybe that command line console could be written in
>> an interpreted language [like Python] that is exposed to Nemiver's
>> interfaces, like what you are proposing.
>     Absolutely! I did not mention about this plain vanilla command line in
> my proposal because I wanted to limit the scope of my project to just the
> python console for now. I think if we design our python console well enough,
> later on providing bindings to pure gdb'ish commands would be simple. What
> do you think ?

Yeah.  I guess if you can manipulate IDebugger and friends from Python
writing a debugging commands interpreter should be a straightforward
[though, maybe long] task :-)

>> Okay.  I take it as the whole timeline is subject to re-arrangement
>> depending on how things turn out to be in practise.
>    Of course! Thing might change depending on how they work out in real
> life. I mentioned the schedule just so that we have some framework to follow
> and also the format for the proposal asks for a brief schedule from all
> applicants.

No problem.


>> >      *-- Milestone 2* *(May 31 - June 7 )*:  Incorporate the review
>> comments
>> > and start on doing a detailed design for the approved high level
>> > design.
>> I would just skip the detailed design part ;-) Once we agree on what we
>> are aiming for (as in, a set of little incremental deliverables) and the
>> rough high level design of the changes to make to reach those points,
>> I'd go straight to coding :-) If you hit road blocks, we'll amend
>> requirements, design and code, if need be.  If we communicate well, I
>> hope we can just keep the mess inside some walls.
>    So are you saying that we don't aim specifically for any high level
> design but rather get it done 'along-the-way', so to speak ?

I was more saying that we'd do away with the *detailed* design document.
The high level one I guess would be interesting to have to at least
roughly know from the beginning in which direction we'd want to go.  But
even then I don't think you should kill yourself over it.

> If so, yes, I agree. But then do you want me to edit my proposal
> within google-melange.comfor this ?

Yes please.

>> >    - *What will showable at mid-term [1]?*
>> >
>> > For midterm I, my plan is to develop an initial prototype with a few of
>> the
>> > important python bindings. This will be more like a proof-of-concept of
>> the
>> > final thing. The initial prototype will have very basic Nemiver
>> > functionalities exposed via python objects and will not include the full
>> > functionality.
>> Sure.  I guess at mid-term we'd be able to show the result of "just one
>> of the iterations".
>     One iteration, seems good. But given that midterm would be half way
> between the final date, I would prefer a couple of iterations, subject to
> the timing constraints, of course. I mean I want the things to be
> proportionate between the midterm and the final evaluations.

Oh, I didn't mean to say that you'd show the result of the _first_
iteration.  Rather, the result of one of the number of iterations that
would have happened until the midterm.

> But as you said, we can monitor the pace of the project along the way
> and throttle ourselves as we see fit.


>> Would this way of working make sense to you?
>     Absolutely! I am really grateful for your valuable comments. So
> now, should I go ahead and edit my proposal within
> based on the above comments or do you think leaving it as is would be
> sufficient ?

I think editing the google-melange hosted proposal accordingly would be
appropriate, yes.



[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]