Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 27 May 2020 14:58:59 +0000
From:      bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org
To:        bugs@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   [Bug 244389] [libxo] procstat(1) --libxo=xml produces invalid markup
Message-ID:  <bug-244389-227-eKR4JjA1yH@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-244389-227@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
References:  <bug-244389-227@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D244389

Phil Shafer <phil@freebsd.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |phil@freebsd.org

--- Comment #1 from Phil Shafer <phil@freebsd.org> ---
Yes, this is completely broken in a conceptual way.  The tags in libxo shou=
ld
be thought of as "columns" in a database, not as data.  Using a pid as the =
tag
here is wrong; it should be more like:

...
 <binary>
   <process>
      <pid>48700</pid>
      <command>zsh</command>
      ...

The big question is: how do we manage changes to libxo-based encoding?  If =
we
make this change (or other future changes), then there is a risk of breaking
something that depends on it?  How do we announce changes that are not
backwards compatible?  Do we just declare is a "bug" that we fix and announ=
ce
via release notes?  Do we need to start using xo_version() calls?  Do we
enforce the use of xo_version at the first change?  How do we arrive on a
policy that we are all comfortable with?

In this case, it's a obvious bug in XML, but folks using JSON might be
depending on it, so it's a semi-perfect example.

Thanks,
 Phil

--=20
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.=



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-244389-227-eKR4JjA1yH>