Advanced and improved absolute paths decoding

[Zubin Mithra]

Hey Philippe,

> Just curious, why would you use call_one? and arg1,arg2 v.s using  lists?

I was just wondering if information related to the call sequence might
be useful. In quite a few languages, JSON data directly maps to
dictionary representations(eg:- Python) -- but upon doing that we'd
lose information about the sequence in which the calls occurred once
we create a dictionary from the JSON. In such cases having explicit
information about the order might be useful.

> FWIW the above would not be valid JSON.
> What about something like:
> [
>   {"fnname": "open",
>    "args":  ["/usr/lib/locale/UTF-8/LC_CTYPE", "O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC"],
>    "ret": "-1"
>   }
> ]

Cool stuff, thank you!

>
> or possibly (not sure which form I like best) using a more compact
> entirely and positional list of lists:
> [
>     "open",
>     "-1",
>    [
>         "/usr/lib/locale/UTF-8/LC_CTYPE",
>         "O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC"
>     ]
> ]
>
>> Of course, this above example is oversimplified(And I'm not sure thats
>> the best way to manage quoting to be honest, I'll put in some more
>> thought).

I think I like the first one better, I think it looks cleaner(open to
suggestions of course!).

>
> I think that in the case of a JSON output, double quoting paths would
> not be desirable and paths should be returned a simple JSON string

Cool stuff, makes sense.

>
>> In cases where a struct is passed as an argument, as in the case of a
>> bind call we have,
>> bind(3, {sa_family=AF_INET, sin_port=htons(7171),
>> sin_addr=inet_addr("0.0.0.0")}, 16) = 0
>>
>> We could have "arg2" set to "{sa_family=AF_INET, sin_port=htons(7171),
>> sin_addr=inet_addr("0.0.0.0")}" but I feel it defeats the purpose as
>> parsing output itself would be more painful. Perhaps something like
>> the following would be nice.
>>
>> {
>>    "call_thirteen" : {
>>       "fnname" = "bind",
>>       "arg1"     = "3",
>>       "arg2"     : {
>>             "sa_family" : "AF_INET",
>>             "sin_port" : "htons(7171)",
>>             "sin_addr" : "inet_addr("0.0.0.0")"
>>        },
>>        "ret"       = "-1"
>>    }
>> }
>
> This makes sense but same comment as above: why not using a combo of
> objects and arrays (using JSON speak)?
> and why not structuring everything that can be?
> ie something along these lines?
> [
>     {
>         "fnname": "bind",
>         "args": [
>             "3",
>             {
>                 "sa_family": "AF_INET",
>                 "sin_port": {
>                     "htons": "7171"
>                 },
>                 "sin_addr": {
>                     "inet_addr": "0.0.0.0"
>                 }
>             }
>         ],
>         "ret": "-1"
>     }
> ]

If the call information being added makes sense, it would look
something as follows, I believe :-

'{"call_one": [{"fnname": "bind", "ret": "-1", "args": ["3",
{"sin_port": {"htons": "7171"}, "sin_addr": {"inet_addr": "0.0.0.0"},
"sa_family": "AF_INET"}]}]}'



Cheers
Zubin