Re: [patch] make --disable-gdbmi work

[Aleksandar Ristovski <aristovski at qnx dot com>]

Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 02:06:11PM -0500, Aleksandar Ristovski wrote:
> > Yes, Vladimir correctly pointed out - my argument about reducing the code 
> > size is not really a good one...
> >
> > I still think the patch is useful, if for no other reason, to keep 
> > dependencies single directional (mi -> gdb).
>
> That's the part I don't think is useful.  The dependencies shouldn't
> be single-directional; I don't see why we should keep MI out of the
> rest of GDB.
Without wanting to get into a lengthy discussion, I have to disagree with this: 
keeping things modular is important, and one of the cleanest ways is keeping 
dependencies single directional whenever possible. Modularity may not be the 
goal of keeping things modular, but extensibility and maintainability are.

Ok, I got into the 'lengthy discussion' mode, but I quickly deleted what I 
started typing (about functional interface in gdb, MI using it blah blah...)...