Re: frysk.proc.{ptrace,corefile} -> frysk.proc.{live,dead}

[Andrew Cagney <cagney at redhat dot com>]

Mark Wielaard wrote:
> Yes, but my point is more that pre-mature refactoring at this point
> seems not a good idea. We don't seem to have all the information yet.
> But maybe you do have a clear picture already. I am trying to get an
> idea what we would really gain from it at this point. Which api users do
> you have in mind and what are they doing now through frysk.proc (or
> directly through frysk.proc.ptrace and frsyk.proc.core) that would be
> better modeled through the proposed properties-based package
> abstractions?
>
>   
The user visible interface is frysk.proc, the rest is internal.

We could equally argue that the frysk.proc.ptrace refactoring was 
pre-mature.  For that we discussed, agreed, and then I implemented; the 
result while a step forward has clear problems; perhaps I could revert 
it.  This next step is along that path.

Remember, live processes can change state and so have observers, dead 
processes do not.

Andrew