| To: | nathans@xxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [pcp] suitability of PCP for event tracing |
| From: | Max Matveev <makc@xxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 11 Nov 2010 12:46:29 +1100 |
| Cc: | kenj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx, systemtap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <148598811.26881289432947445.JavaMail.root@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <1565492777.26861289432902163.JavaMail.root@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <148598811.26881289432947445.JavaMail.root@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
On Thu, 11 Nov 2010 10:49:07 +1100 (EST), nathans wrote: >> There may be just one PMID and an associated PM_TYPE_STRING value >> in cases where the event subsystem produces event records as >> structured strings, e.g. XML or JSON encodings. nathans> I think we should introduce PM_TYPE_JSON and PM_TYPE_XML so that the nathans> clients can differentiate these from unstructured strings... It we're going to do that can we also agree who owns memory allocated to hold the string and who is responsible for freeing it? Current idea what pmda callback owns the memory makes life harder for dynamically allocated strings. In fact, I think adding something PM_TYPE_YOUFREE_STRING would make like easier for PMDA writers. max |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [pcp] suitability of PCP for event tracing, nathans |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | I27 Piso a Estrenar en Matienzo 2532 y Ciudad de la Paz, 7º us 345.000 incluye Cochera y Baulera DOBLE, La Capitana3 |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [pcp] suitability of PCP for event tracing, nathans |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [pcp] suitability of PCP for event tracing, Ken McDonell |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |