From: John L. <le...@mo...> - 2006-07-02 16:14:08
|
On Fri, Jun 30, 2006 at 01:28:43PM -0500, Maynard Johnson wrote: > > You didn't comment on this. I can see the argument for the hierarchical > > approach for processes and threads, in fact, now you remind me. But > > event num, mask, CPU etc all need to be like I describe above, I think. > Dave had actually investigated this approach at one point, but > eventually backed away from it. IIRC, the reason he didn't stick with > it was because he (and others who reviewed the schema) felt it important > to place the sample data out of line from the > Process->Thread->Module->Symbol elements. This doesn't seem that big a > deal when the XML instance includes only basic sample data, but when the > user asks for --details and/or --debug-info, the amount of data > explodes. It's easy to see then why having summary data at the 4 levels > of the hierarchy described above would be beneficial to a tool consuming > the XML. The tool could actually display the top-level information > while parsing the rest of the file for the detailed sample data. I'm not really talking about the summary data at each level, but the layout of how you're hard-coding stuff... please review my example... regards john |