This is the mail archive of the
systemtap@sourceware.org
mailing list for the systemtap project.
[Bug tapsets/10697] Tapset for generation of XML-esque data
- From: "chwang at redhat dot com" <sourceware-bugzilla at sourceware dot org>
- To: systemtap at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: 22 Oct 2009 14:52:44 -0000
- Subject: [Bug tapsets/10697] Tapset for generation of XML-esque data
- References: <20090926214257.10697.chwang@redhat.com>
- Reply-to: sourceware-bugzilla at sourceware dot org
------- Additional Comments From chwang at redhat dot com 2009-10-22 14:52 -------
(In reply to comment #4)
> (In reply to comment #1)
> > Created an attachment (id=4233)
--> (http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=4233&action=view)
> > Current version of the markup script
> >
> > Brief sketch of proposed script. Somewhat arbitrary/possibly inefficient in the
> > way it keeps track of open/closed tags and what needs to be printed.
>
> Any thoughts on how we could use this with dynamic output?. I'm thinking of
> scenarios where we might want graphs to parse the output and update dynamically
> . We would need the xml output to be consistent/fully formed at all times , not
> sure if thats feasible..
>
>
I'm not sure how to keep the XML fully formed without using embedded C to insert
into a file, but maybe you can pretend that closing tags exist? I did something
similar to build a (really) basic real-time XML-esque grapher.
So for example the script outputs:
<tag1>
<tag2>
<tag3>
and the reader will read that as [the round brackets indicate are imaginary tags)
Read <tag1>:
<tag1>
(</tag1>)
Read <tag2>:
<tag1>
<tag2>
(<tag2>)
(<tag1>)
Read tag3:
<tag1>
<tag2>
<tag3>
(<tag3>)
(<tag2>)
(<tag1>)
In my case the closing tags didn't even matter except to keep track of which
node to append data/nodes to, so it worked out pretty well.
--
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10697
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.