Re: [Geany] Per-workspace instance of Geany

2011-01-27 Thread Randy Kramer
On Wednesday 26 January 2011 08:23:50 pm Randy Kramer wrote:
 Ok, from Neil's response to this thread, I see that there is a

Oops, sorry, that was Lex's response--I guess I had my mind in the 
scintilla world...

Randy Kramer
___
Geany mailing list
Geany@uvena.de
http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany


Re: [Geany] Per-workspace instance of Geany

2011-01-27 Thread Krzysztof Żelechowski
Dnia środa, 26 stycznia 2011 o 23:43:24 Lex Trotman napisał(a):
 2011/1/26 Krzysztof Żelechowski giecr...@stegny.2a.pl:
  Dnia środa, 26 stycznia 2011 o 11:45:53 Lex Trotman napisał(a):
  First of all, proper use of a version control system should eliminate the 
  need to edit networked files in Geany, unless the developer sits on a thin 
  client -- but then either the network is good enough or nothing works.
 
  So Geany could limit its locking facilities to local files or instruct the 
  developer about proper procedures.
 
  IMHO,
  Chris
 
 
 Totally agree, except some people use Geany to edit web files over FTP
 to their server.  To change to a VCS their service provider would need
 to change.
 

Not necessarily, since the entire site can (and if you create static content 
from templates, must) be uploaded in batch and the development files can be 
maintained elsewhere.  But I agree it may cause too much overhead with petty 
projects.

I was told by Geany documentation that Geany does not handle URL.  There is no 
interface for that in Geany’s file requester.  When Dolphin passes a remote 
file to Geany, Geany opens a temporary file.  So I can see no way to actually 
do that, unless you mount a FTP directory into kernel, which looks rather 
suicidal to me.

Confusedly,
Chris
___
Geany mailing list
Geany@uvena.de
http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany


Re: [Geany] Per-workspace instance of Geany

2011-01-27 Thread Krzysztof Żelechowski
Dnia czwartek, 27 stycznia 2011 o 02:28:05 Randy Kramer napisał(a):
 Maybe I've just done it accidentally so often that I've developed habits 
 (knock on wood) to avoid the problem.  (Primary habit being, always hit 
 ctrl s after doing almost anything (and before moving the focus away 
 from an editor).)
 

That does not help if you edit the same file in two independent windows and the 
editors do not monitor the modification time.

IMHO,
Chris
___
Geany mailing list
Geany@uvena.de
http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany


Re: [Geany] Per-workspace instance of Geany

2011-01-27 Thread Colomban Wendling
Le 27/01/2011 19:18, Krzysztof Żelechowski a écrit :
 Dnia środa, 26 stycznia 2011 o 23:43:24 Lex Trotman napisał(a):
 2011/1/26 Krzysztof Żelechowski giecr...@stegny.2a.pl:
 Dnia środa, 26 stycznia 2011 o 11:45:53 Lex Trotman napisał(a):
 First of all, proper use of a version control system should eliminate the 
 need to edit networked files in Geany, unless the developer sits on a thin 
 client -- but then either the network is good enough or nothing works.

 So Geany could limit its locking facilities to local files or instruct the 
 developer about proper procedures.

 IMHO,
 Chris


 Totally agree, except some people use Geany to edit web files over FTP
 to their server.  To change to a VCS their service provider would need
 to change.

 
 Not necessarily, since the entire site can (and if you create static content 
 from templates, must) be uploaded in batch and the development files can be 
 maintained elsewhere.  But I agree it may cause too much overhead with petty 
 projects.
 
 I was told by Geany documentation that Geany does not handle URL.  There is 
 no interface for that in Geany’s file requester.  When Dolphin passes a 
 remote file to Geany, Geany opens a temporary file.  So I can see no way to 
 actually do that, unless you mount a FTP directory into kernel, which looks 
 rather suicidal to me.
Using GIO-fuse :) It mounts GIO mounts using fuse, so they are available
as true local files.

cheers,
Colomban
___
Geany mailing list
Geany@uvena.de
http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany


Re: [Geany] Per-workspace instance of Geany

2011-01-27 Thread Krzysztof Żelechowski
Dnia czwartek, 27 stycznia 2011 o 19:54:24 Colomban Wendling napisał(a):
  I was told by Geany documentation that Geany does not handle URL.  There is 
  no interface for that in Geany’s file requester.  When Dolphin passes a 
  remote file to Geany, Geany opens a temporary file.  So I can see no way to 
  actually do that, unless you mount a FTP directory into kernel, which looks 
  rather suicidal to me.
 Using GIO-fuse :) It mounts GIO mounts using fuse, so they are available
 as true local files.

Whatever the name, I do not believe it is a good thing.

Sorry for the noise,
Chris
___
Geany mailing list
Geany@uvena.de
http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany


Re: [Geany] Per-workspace instance of Geany

2011-01-27 Thread Dimitar Zhekov
On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 22:08:33 +0100
Julien Nicoulaud julien.nicoul...@gmail.com wrote:

 2011/1/23 Dimitar Zhekov dimitar.zhe...@gmail.com
 
   Anyway, I wrote a little wrapper script that detects if there's no Geany
   window in the current workspace, in which case it forces creating one:
   https://github.com/nicoulaj/dotfiles/blob/master/bin/geany [...]
 
  You can let Geany do this check by using the --socket parameter, which
  is also required if you want separate instances. The attached
  wrapper script is equivalent to the former in-Geany implementation.
 
 Has this script been tested recently ? I finally took some time to try it,
 and it does not seem to work for me.

I'm using it all the time. A simpler command is listed in the
manual: http://www.geany.org/manual/current/, --socket-file.

-- 
E-gards: Jimmy
___
Geany mailing list
Geany@uvena.de
http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany


Re: [Geany] Per-workspace instance of Geany

2011-01-26 Thread Lex Trotman
2011/1/26 Krzysztof Żelechowski giecr...@stegny.2a.pl:
 Dnia środa, 26 stycznia 2011 o 00:57:48 Lex Trotman napisał(a):
 2011/1/26 Krzysztof Żelechowski giecr...@stegny.2a.pl:
  Dnia wtorek, 25 stycznia 2011 o 14:27:18 Randy Kramer napisał(a):
  On Tuesday 25 January 2011 04:04:53 am Krzysztof Żelechowski wrote:
   Dnia wtorek, 25 stycznia 2011 o 00:43:11 Lex Trotman napisał(a):
Your description of single instance, multi window is correct, yes
there is a slightly enhanced risk, but IMH(unbiased)O compared to
the problems with multiple instances this is small, see my scenario
on another post on this thread.  No software can prevent the same
file in two instances being different.  With a single instance all
windows see the same (possibly modified) version of the file.
  
   Open Office, for example, can: all other instances are either
   detached (as in stationery) or read-only.
 
  Krzysztof,
 
  Is that on Windows or Linux?  (I can imagine differences between them,
  and rarely use Open Office myself.)
 
  I have seen that on Windows.

 On Linux OOO is a single instance multiple window application. And I
 can't get it to load the same document in more than one window anyway,
 it just raises the window where the document is already open?


 You run the other copy of OpenOffice on another workstation.

 Chris

Ok, understand.  OOq puts a lock file in the directory for each file
thats open, thats how it prohibits multi-edit.

Thats Ok for a document editor, but I'm not so sure for a development
editor where potentially lots of files are open.  And the performance
hit on remote files is potentially significant.  Users editing remote
files are already complaining about performance.  And we then have the
problem of removing lock files when Geany quits or crashes.  That
means blocking closing Geany until lock files are removed which could
be a problem again on remote filesystems.

Cheers
Lex


___
Geany mailing list
Geany@uvena.de
http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany


Re: [Geany] Per-workspace instance of Geany

2011-01-26 Thread Krzysztof Żelechowski
Dnia środa, 26 stycznia 2011 o 11:45:53 Lex Trotman napisał(a):
 Ok, understand.  OOq puts a lock file in the directory for each file
 thats open, thats how it prohibits multi-edit.
 
 Thats Ok for a document editor, but I'm not so sure for a development
 editor where potentially lots of files are open.  And the performance
 hit on remote files is potentially significant.  Users editing remote
 files are already complaining about performance.  And we then have the
 problem of removing lock files when Geany quits or crashes.  That
 means blocking closing Geany until lock files are removed which could
 be a problem again on remote filesystems.

First of all, proper use of a version control system should eliminate the need 
to edit networked files in Geany, unless the developer sits on a thin client — 
but then either the network is good enough or nothing works.

So Geany could limit its locking facilities to local files or instruct the 
developer about proper procedures.

IMHO,
Chris
___
Geany mailing list
Geany@uvena.de
http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany


Re: [Geany] Per-workspace instance of Geany

2011-01-26 Thread Randy Kramer
On Tuesday 25 January 2011 06:57:48 pm Lex Trotman wrote:
 2011/1/26 Krzysztof Żelechowski giecr...@stegny.2a.pl:
  Dnia wtorek, 25 stycznia 2011 o 14:27:18 Randy Kramer napisał(a):
  On Tuesday 25 January 2011 04:04:53 am Krzysztof Żelechowski wrote:
   Dnia wtorek, 25 stycznia 2011 o 00:43:11 Lex Trotman napisał(a):
Your description of single instance, multi window is correct,
yes there is a slightly enhanced risk, but IMH(unbiased)O
compared to the problems with multiple instances this is
small, see my scenario on another post on this thread.  No
software can prevent the same file in two instances being
different.  With a single instance all windows see the same
(possibly modified) version of the file.
  
   Open Office, for example, can: all other instances are either
   detached (as in stationery) or read-only.
 
  Krzysztof,
 
  Is that on Windows or Linux?  (I can imagine differences between
  them, and rarely use Open Office myself.)
 
  I have seen that on Windows.

 On Linux OOO is a single instance multiple window application. And I
 can't get it to load the same document in more than one window
 anyway, it just raises the window where the document is already open?

Yes, I forgot about that behavior (that I've seen in other 
apps)--sometimes quite useful, sometimes very annoying.

Randy Kramer



___
Geany mailing list
Geany@uvena.de
http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany


Re: [Geany] Per-workspace instance of Geany

2011-01-26 Thread Thomas Martitz

On 26.01.2011 14:22, Randy Kramer wrote:

Yes, I forgot about that behavior (that I've seen in other
apps)--sometimes quite useful, sometimes very annoying.



Very reasonable behavor if you ask me. For both users and developers. It 
solves the same file in multiple instances problem quite easily.


Best regards.
___
Geany mailing list
Geany@uvena.de
http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany


Re: [Geany] Per-workspace instance of Geany

2011-01-26 Thread Randy Kramer
On Wednesday 26 January 2011 09:01:18 am Thomas Martitz wrote:
 On 26.01.2011 14:22, Randy Kramer wrote:
  Yes, I forgot about that behavior (that I've seen in other
  apps)--sometimes quite useful, sometimes very annoying.

 Very reasonable behavor if you ask me. For both users and developers.
 It solves the same file in multiple instances problem quite easily.

One annoyance is if you want to have a 2nd instance of the file so that 
you can work in two places in the file.  (Some editors allow you to do 
a split pane or similar to solve that problem, but not all.)




___
Geany mailing list
Geany@uvena.de
http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany


Re: [Geany] Per-workspace instance of Geany

2011-01-26 Thread Julien Nicoulaud
2011/1/23 Dimitar Zhekov dimitar.zhe...@gmail.com

 On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 22:49:47 +0100
 Julien Nicoulaud julien.nicoul...@gmail.com wrote:

  I'm using GNOME with several workspaces, and there's a behaviour I find
  quite annoying: if you have an instance of Geany running in a workspace
 and
  you open a file in another workspace, it just opens the file in the
 already
  running instance and switches you back to the workspace. [...]

 That was discussed several times, and implemented once, but various
 issues came out, and the patch was reverted.

  Anyway, I wrote a little wrapper script that detects if there's no Geany
  window in the current workspace, in which case it forces creating one:
  https://github.com/nicoulaj/dotfiles/blob/master/bin/geany [...]

 You can let Geany do this check by using the --socket parameter, which
 is also required if you want separate instances. The attached
 wrapper script is equivalent to the former in-Geany implementation.

Has this script been tested recently ? I finally took some time to try it,
and it does not seem to work for me.



 --
 E-gards: Jimmy

 ___
 Geany mailing list
 Geany@uvena.de
 http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany


___
Geany mailing list
Geany@uvena.de
http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany


Re: [Geany] Per-workspace instance of Geany

2011-01-26 Thread Thomas Martitz

On 26.01.2011 21:05, Randy Kramer wrote:


One annoyance is if you want to have a 2nd instance of the file so that
you can work in two places in the file.  (Some editors allow you to do
a split pane or similar to solve that problem, but not all.)


Concurrent instances is probably not the way to achieve that. Is there 
any program in the world which allows this?


Best regards.
___
Geany mailing list
Geany@uvena.de
http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany


Re: [Geany] Per-workspace instance of Geany

2011-01-26 Thread Lex Trotman
2011/1/26 Krzysztof Żelechowski giecr...@stegny.2a.pl:
 Dnia środa, 26 stycznia 2011 o 11:45:53 Lex Trotman napisał(a):
 Ok, understand.  OOq puts a lock file in the directory for each file
 thats open, thats how it prohibits multi-edit.

 Thats Ok for a document editor, but I'm not so sure for a development
 editor where potentially lots of files are open.  And the performance
 hit on remote files is potentially significant.  Users editing remote
 files are already complaining about performance.  And we then have the
 problem of removing lock files when Geany quits or crashes.  That
 means blocking closing Geany until lock files are removed which could
 be a problem again on remote filesystems.

 First of all, proper use of a version control system should eliminate the 
 need to edit networked files in Geany, unless the developer sits on a thin 
 client -- but then either the network is good enough or nothing works.

 So Geany could limit its locking facilities to local files or instruct the 
 developer about proper procedures.

 IMHO,
 Chris


Totally agree, except some people use Geany to edit web files over FTP
to their server.  To change to a VCS their service provider would need
to change.

Cheers
Lex
___
Geany mailing list
Geany@uvena.de
http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany


Re: [Geany] Per-workspace instance of Geany

2011-01-26 Thread Randy Kramer
On Wednesday 26 January 2011 05:37:57 pm Lex Trotman wrote:
 On 27 January 2011 09:12, Randy Kramer rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
  On Wednesday 26 January 2011 04:58:57 pm Thomas Martitz wrote:
  On 26.01.2011 21:05, Randy Kramer wrote:
   One annoyance is if you want to have a 2nd instance of the file
   so that you can work in two places in the file.  (Some editors
   allow you to do a split pane or similar to solve that problem,
   but not all.)
 
  Concurrent instances is probably not the way to achieve that. Is
  there any program in the world which allows this?
 
  Allows what?  Opening the same file in different tabs of the same
  instance of an editor?  Opening the same file in two different
  instances of an editor?
 
  Many that I've used.
 
  I don't do it often--I'd have to test again to confirm which of the
  current editors I use do that.
 
  Randy Kramer

 Hi Randy,

 An Emacs instance of course allows the same file to be edited in more
 than one top level window and the edits appear in the others.  In
 fact I am occasionally moved to go back to Emacs for just this
 capability, editing definitions at the top of a file and functions
 using them at the bottom of the file.

 I don't know of any editors where editing the file in multiple
 instances allows the edits to show up in the other instances.

No, sorry, I didn't mean to say that any did.  But they do typically 
warn you when the file on disk doesn't match the file you're working on 
(when the instance of the editor gets the focus).

 Dumb editors allow you to edit the file in multiple instances and the
 last saved just overwrites previous saves, not really what we want
 since I for one will almost certainly do it accidentally :-(

Maybe I've just done it accidentally so often that I've developed habits 
(knock on wood) to avoid the problem.  (Primary habit being, always hit 
ctrl s after doing almost anything (and before moving the focus away 
from an editor).)

Anyway, like I say, sorry if I created some confusion.

Randy Kramer

___
Geany mailing list
Geany@uvena.de
http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany


Re: [Geany] Per-workspace instance of Geany

2011-01-26 Thread Lex Trotman
On 27 January 2011 18:42, Jon Senior j...@restlesslemon.co.uk wrote:
 On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 20:23:50 -0500
 Randy Kramer rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:

 Ok, from Neil's response to this thread, I see that there is a
 misunderstanding somewhere--I did not intend to say that the changes
 would be visible in both (or all) instances of the editor.

 But, that doesn't keep me from working on them just fine.

 (And, if I save the file in one instance of the editor after making
 changes, when I go to that file in an other instance of the editor,
 I'm warned that the file on disk doesn't match the one I'm about to
 edit, and I'm prompted to do things like reload the file.  (Nedit is
 an example.))

 geany will do the same (I've made use of this in the past. Open a log
 file in geany then re-run the code that generates the file and geany
 will ask me if I want to reload the file). As I understand things, you
 can force a new instance of geany, and you could open a file in both
 instances. Personally if I want to look at one part of a file and edit
 another, I prefer to use something passive like less, which is far
 less prone to accidental overwriting.

 Jon

Hi Jon,

You don't have to forgo Geany if you only want to read the file in
another instance, just set Document-read only and you don't have to
accept anything less (boom boom :-).

The problems are when editing prefs/projects/files in more than one instance.

Cheers
Lex

 ___
 Geany mailing list
 Geany@uvena.de
 http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany

___
Geany mailing list
Geany@uvena.de
http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany


Re: [Geany] Per-workspace instance of Geany

2011-01-25 Thread Krzysztof Żelechowski
Dnia wtorek, 25 stycznia 2011 o 00:43:11 Lex Trotman napisał(a):
 Your description of single instance, multi window is correct, yes
 there is a slightly enhanced risk, but IMH(unbiased)O compared to the
 problems with multiple instances this is small, see my scenario on
 another post on this thread.  No software can prevent the same file in
 two instances being different.  With a single instance all windows see
 the same (possibly modified) version of the file.
 

Open Office, for example, can: all other instances are either detached (as in 
stationery) or read-only.

Chris
___
Geany mailing list
Geany@uvena.de
http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany


Re: [Geany] Per-workspace instance of Geany

2011-01-25 Thread Randy Kramer
On Monday 24 January 2011 06:43:11 pm Lex Trotman wrote:
 On 24 January 2011 23:52, Randy Kramer rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
  On Saturday 22 January 2011 09:07:31 pm Lex Trotman wrote:
  3. It is (I think) a big change to allow Geany to have one
  instance with multiple top level windows, how to handle different
  projects in different top levels? how to handle different
  preferences in different top levels?
 
  So AFAICT there is no clear solution.
 
  My personal choice would be 3 because it would then also support
  multiple monitor setups, but I believe that there is a lot of
  usage issues to resolve and a LOT of work involved.
 
  Any good ideas welcome.
 
  No good ideas, but I'll continue to express biased opinions ;-)

 Every opinion is biased, except mine :-)

  I'm not sure I fully understand your number 3, but if that means I
  can run only one instance of Geany (with multiple top level
  windows). I would be concerned.
 
  It sounds like the way Iceweasel / Firefox is set up, at least as
  of version 3.0.6, which is what I'm using.
 
  My problem with that is that if something happens to that one
  instance of Iceweasel (with several top level windows open on
  different desktops), I lose all the open pages.  (For that reason,
  I continue to use konqueror as my primary web browser--there are
  pages for which doesn't work, but when one instance dies (hangs or
  crashes), I lose only the open pages on that instance.
 
  (I feel this way despite the fact that Iceweasel allows me to
  easily reopen all those pages (and, I've finally (recently) learned
  how to do the same thing with konqueror in conjunction with a cron
  job...))
 
  I don't expect Geany to hang / crash, but 11 years or so ago I was
  told that Linux never crashes, but I've managed to prove those
  people wrong (not intentionally, and to my detriment). .-)

 Save early, save often :-) after all if the file isn't on disk no
 other tools can access it :-)

 Your description of single instance, multi window is correct, yes
 there is a slightly enhanced risk, but IMH(unbiased)O compared to the
 problems with multiple instances this is small, see my scenario on
 another post on this thread.  No software can prevent the same file
 in two instances being different.  With a single instance all windows
 see the same (possibly modified) version of the file.

 Whereas multiple instances do not know about each other and chaos
 reigns, the single instance knows about its multiple windows, and so
 can save multiple sets of prefs/projects etc.

 The alternative (to continue your browser theme) is the Chrome
 approach where each tab (Geany top level) is a separate process but
 there is a front end controller process that manages them.  But
 Chrome doesn't have to contend with Geany's problem of synchronizing
 modifications to multiple instances of a file.

Thanks for the response!  

I have the same file open in multiple windows (on different desktops) so 
rarely that it is not something I worry about.  When I have the same 
file open more than once, it is almost always on the same desktop.

(I do have some files that I use related to work on more than one 
desktop, but I keep those on a desktop related to only that type of 
file, and go to that desktop to read / edit them.)

So, I guess I'm saying I'm not in a position (atm) to comment on the 
difficulties (or workarounds) related to the same file open on 
different desktops / instances.

Randy Kramer



___
Geany mailing list
Geany@uvena.de
http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany


Re: [Geany] Per-workspace instance of Geany

2011-01-25 Thread Randy Kramer
On Tuesday 25 January 2011 04:04:53 am Krzysztof Żelechowski wrote:
 Dnia wtorek, 25 stycznia 2011 o 00:43:11 Lex Trotman napisał(a):
  Your description of single instance, multi window is correct, yes
  there is a slightly enhanced risk, but IMH(unbiased)O compared to
  the problems with multiple instances this is small, see my scenario
  on another post on this thread.  No software can prevent the same
  file in two instances being different.  With a single instance all
  windows see the same (possibly modified) version of the file.

 Open Office, for example, can: all other instances are either
 detached (as in stationery) or read-only.

Krzysztof,

Is that on Windows or Linux?  (I can imagine differences between them, 
and rarely use Open Office myself.)

Randy Kramer


___
Geany mailing list
Geany@uvena.de
http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany


Re: [Geany] Per-workspace instance of Geany

2011-01-25 Thread Dimitar Zhekov
On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 10:12:05 +1100
Lex Trotman ele...@gmail.com wrote:

  To answer both a and b, nobody wins. For the preferences and project
  files, the single instance sm works like hybernate-and-restore: each
  instance preserves it's own configuration, and neither geany.conf nor
  the project files are saved.
 
 Oh ok, its unchanged wins :-), ie thats what is left in the
 prefs/project files for use by any new instance started up.  Or
 another way to look at it is the most recently closed Geany wins,
 assuming a user eventually closes one or more of the instances.

I'm not sure what unchanged wins means, but as you know, the projects
and settings in Geany are saved either when you edit them via the
respective dialog and confirm, or when you close an instance. The
single instance sm does not change that in any way - it's a session
saver/restorer that adheres to Geany logic, not a solver for any for
any multiply instance problems.

  (For the document files it asks if to save, of course. XSMP suggests
  that a modified file may be saved into a temporary file, and then
  reloaded and remarked as modified, but I have yet to see a progam
  impementing THAT idea.)
 
 For saving files, and to some extent projects, the problem is not the
 software, its the liveware behind the keyboard, an example scenario:
 I have f.txt open and modified in two instances (perhaps on different
 workspaces and I've forgotten about having two). At logout the session
 management makes Geany instance one pop-up a save modified file
 f.txt? box, I say yes/no, then instance two does the same [...]

KDE will switch you to the respective workspace if needed and raise
the instance that requests interaction, IIRC.

GNOME will display the popup messages at once (again IIRC), you'll see
the messages for the current workspace, and any other workspaces that
need interaction will be flashed in the pager.

Xfce 4.6 does not work properly with 2+ programs that request
interaction. You'll receive a popup for one of the instances, answer it,
and then the logout will stop. When you manually close the 2nd and
subsequent instances (Save and close, or Close and answer the
save prompt), the logout will continue. Haven't checked Xfce 4.8.

(IMHO, if you modify a file in 2+ instances and close them one by one,
you will get confused anyway. And that's a border case.)

 BTW how does that dialog box identify the instance?

If you expect identification like Geany-number or something, it
won't be really helpful. The right thing is to raise the top-level
window of the application requesting XSMP iteraction. Normally that
should be done by the window manager.

 Might be a nice idea to post the required patch(s) again so
 Nick/Enrico don't have to search the archives

I still have no response for the save find settions patch from 3 days
ago, so that seems pointless. The list really feels unresponsive. :(

-- 
E-gards: Jimmy
___
Geany mailing list
Geany@uvena.de
http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany


Re: [Geany] Per-workspace instance of Geany

2011-01-25 Thread Dimitar Zhekov
Hi,

On the single single instance, multi window: it has it's own problems.

For example, when you stop Geany, it'll have to save in geany.conf the
[positions and] desktops of all open windows, which is unportable. And
of course, under Windows, multi-window is limited to a single desktop
(see SetThreadDesktop), so multiply instances are desirable.

 Whereas multiple instances do not know about each other and chaos
 reigns, the single instance knows about its multiple windows, and so
 can save multiple sets of prefs/projects etc.

Except that we don't know which set of settings has priority and
applies to the newly open windows, so we're back to square one. NEdit
had global shared options and a smaller set of per-window options, but
that'll be hell to implement.

-- 
E-gards: Jimmy
___
Geany mailing list
Geany@uvena.de
http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany


Re: [Geany] Per-workspace instance of Geany

2011-01-25 Thread Krzysztof Żelechowski
Dnia wtorek, 25 stycznia 2011 o 14:27:18 Randy Kramer napisał(a):
 On Tuesday 25 January 2011 04:04:53 am Krzysztof Żelechowski wrote:
  Dnia wtorek, 25 stycznia 2011 o 00:43:11 Lex Trotman napisał(a):
   Your description of single instance, multi window is correct, yes
   there is a slightly enhanced risk, but IMH(unbiased)O compared to
   the problems with multiple instances this is small, see my scenario
   on another post on this thread.  No software can prevent the same
   file in two instances being different.  With a single instance all
   windows see the same (possibly modified) version of the file.
 
  Open Office, for example, can: all other instances are either
  detached (as in stationery) or read-only.
 
 Krzysztof,
 
 Is that on Windows or Linux?  (I can imagine differences between them, 
 and rarely use Open Office myself.)

I have seen that on Windows.  
___
Geany mailing list
Geany@uvena.de
http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany


Re: [Geany] Per-workspace instance of Geany

2011-01-25 Thread Lex Trotman
On 26 January 2011 05:24, Dimitar Zhekov dimitar.zhe...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 10:12:05 +1100
 Lex Trotman ele...@gmail.com wrote:

  To answer both a and b, nobody wins. For the preferences and project
  files, the single instance sm works like hybernate-and-restore: each
  instance preserves it's own configuration, and neither geany.conf nor
  the project files are saved.

 Oh ok, its unchanged wins :-), ie thats what is left in the
 prefs/project files for use by any new instance started up.  Or
 another way to look at it is the most recently closed Geany wins,
 assuming a user eventually closes one or more of the instances.

 I'm not sure what unchanged wins means, but as you know, the projects
 and settings in Geany are saved either when you edit them via the
 respective dialog and confirm, or when you close an instance. The
 single instance sm does not change that in any way - it's a session
 saver/restorer that adheres to Geany logic, not a solver for any for
 any multiply instance problems.

Sorry, should have been clearer, you have described it correctly and
my point, as you say, is that it doesn't solve multiple instance
issues (and is not expected to)


  (For the document files it asks if to save, of course. XSMP suggests
  that a modified file may be saved into a temporary file, and then
  reloaded and remarked as modified, but I have yet to see a progam
  impementing THAT idea.)

 For saving files, and to some extent projects, the problem is not the
 software, its the liveware behind the keyboard, an example scenario:
 I have f.txt open and modified in two instances (perhaps on different
 workspaces and I've forgotten about having two). At logout the session
 management makes Geany instance one pop-up a save modified file
 f.txt? box, I say yes/no, then instance two does the same [...]

 KDE will switch you to the respective workspace if needed and raise
 the instance that requests interaction, IIRC.

 GNOME will display the popup messages at once (again IIRC), you'll see
 the messages for the current workspace, and any other workspaces that
 need interaction will be flashed in the pager.

 Xfce 4.6 does not work properly with 2+ programs that request
 interaction. You'll receive a popup for one of the instances, answer it,
 and then the logout will stop. When you manually close the 2nd and
 subsequent instances (Save and close, or Close and answer the
 save prompt), the logout will continue. Haven't checked Xfce 4.8.

Wow, don't you like consistency, pity there isn't any :-D


 (IMHO, if you modify a file in 2+ instances and close them one by one,
 you will get confused anyway. And that's a border case.)

Yes, I'm not saying that you will do it deliberately (although some
will try) but if its possible to accidently do it someone (me?) will.


 BTW how does that dialog box identify the instance?

 If you expect identification like Geany-number or something, it
 won't be really helpful.

Yeah thats why I asked.

The right thing is to raise the top-level
 window of the application requesting XSMP iteraction. Normally that
 should be done by the window manager.


Sounds more useful

 Might be a nice idea to post the required patch(s) again so
 Nick/Enrico don't have to search the archives

 I still have no response for the save find settions patch from 3 days
 ago, so that seems pointless. The list really feels unresponsive. :(

As discussed elsewhere, there are only 2-3 people who maintain Geany
and I suspect that they are having a break after releasing 0.20 and
0,20 plugins.  I notice that no one has replied to the email where I
suggested that more volunteers would be welcome if they have the time
and discipline to assist.

Remember it takes at least half an hour per patch to get a clean
trunk, apply the patch, test it, (assuming it works) check the
formatting, write the changelog and commit so you need that sort of
time.

Cheers
Lex


 --
 E-gards: Jimmy
 ___
 Geany mailing list
 Geany@uvena.de
 http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany

___
Geany mailing list
Geany@uvena.de
http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany


Re: [Geany] Per-workspace instance of Geany

2011-01-24 Thread Dimitar Zhekov
On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 11:22:33 +1100
Lex Trotman ele...@gmail.com wrote:

  X11: the session management supports instances.
 
 So who decides who wins?

To answer both a and b, nobody wins. For the preferences and project
files, the single instance sm works like hybernate-and-restore: each
instance preserves it's own configuration, and neither geany.conf nor
the project files are saved.

(For the document files it asks if to save, of course. XSMP suggests
that a modified file may be saved into a temporary file, and then
reloaded and remarked as modified, but I have yet to see a progam
impementing THAT idea.)

 It will be fine if Dimitar's implementation is included in trunk. It
 is more right than mine.

Thanks. :)

 Moreover, it does not contain so much 
 miscellaneous stuff unrelated to session management.

Actually none. Two extra patches are required, but one of them is
shared with the various prefs editor, and the other is a cleanup.

-- 
E-gards: Jimmy
___
Geany mailing list
Geany@uvena.de
http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany


Re: [Geany] Per-workspace instance of Geany

2011-01-23 Thread Dimitar Zhekov
On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 13:07:31 +1100
Lex Trotman ele...@gmail.com wrote:

 a. who owns the preferences? preventing multiple instances from
 changing preferences is very limiting, if they can all change them,
 who saves their set when Geany terminates? and how to lock them
 irrespective of the filesystem they reside on to prevent scrambled
 preferences?

Windows: the instances are stopped one by one. The last one wins.
X11: the session management supports instances.

 b. how do you restart multiple instances? which leads to session
 management being required, but Geany has two potential implementations
 of that and no clear path forward yet

It has a complete sm for the current single-instance behaviour, and an
incomplete multi-instance sm for the non-implemented multi-instance
behaviour. So the real question is, do we plan to introduce any multi
instancing in Geany in the foreseeable future? If not, the last
single-instance sm applies against 5530, and is quite stable.

 c. the same issues relating to preferences apply to project files
 being used by more than one instance, or if a project can be open in
 only one instance how to enforce that?

The same answer as for a. and b.

 d. and of course these also apply to the same document file being open
 in multiple instances, at logout/shutdown who's copy gets saved? how
 do you detect the fact so you can at least warn the user? remember
 that locking and the like don't work on remote filesystems.

Both Windows and X11-sm will ask you for any modified files.

(In the current implementation, both simply terminate.)

-- 
E-gards: Jimmy
___
Geany mailing list
Geany@uvena.de
http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany


Re: [Geany] Per-workspace instance of Geany

2011-01-23 Thread Julien Nicoulaud
Thanks for the infos and script Dimitar !

2011/1/23 Dimitar Zhekov dimitar.zhe...@gmail.com

 On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 13:07:31 +1100
 Lex Trotman ele...@gmail.com wrote:

  a. who owns the preferences? preventing multiple instances from
  changing preferences is very limiting, if they can all change them,
  who saves their set when Geany terminates? and how to lock them
  irrespective of the filesystem they reside on to prevent scrambled
  preferences?

Why not save preferences right when closing the preferences dialog ? That's
what I would except as a lambda user.



 Windows: the instances are stopped one by one. The last one wins.
 X11: the session management supports instances.

  b. how do you restart multiple instances? which leads to session
  management being required, but Geany has two potential implementations
  of that and no clear path forward yet

 It has a complete sm for the current single-instance behaviour, and an
 incomplete multi-instance sm for the non-implemented multi-instance
 behaviour. So the real question is, do we plan to introduce any multi
 instancing in Geany in the foreseeable future? If not, the last
 single-instance sm applies against 5530, and is quite stable.

  c. the same issues relating to preferences apply to project files
  being used by more than one instance, or if a project can be open in
  only one instance how to enforce that?

 The same answer as for a. and b.

  d. and of course these also apply to the same document file being open
  in multiple instances, at logout/shutdown who's copy gets saved? how
  do you detect the fact so you can at least warn the user? remember
  that locking and the like don't work on remote filesystems.

 Both Windows and X11-sm will ask you for any modified files.

 (In the current implementation, both simply terminate.)

 --
 E-gards: Jimmy
 ___
 Geany mailing list
 Geany@uvena.de
 http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany

___
Geany mailing list
Geany@uvena.de
http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany


Re: [Geany] Per-workspace instance of Geany

2011-01-23 Thread Erik de Castro Lopo
Lex Trotman wrote:

 There are two issues that I see which complicate potential solutions here.
 
 1. There is not AFAIK any common portable way to find out which
 workspace Geany is running in and that a request to show a file in
 Geany came from a different workspace, so deciding to run another
 instance or move Geany to another workspace is going to have to be
 solved for each system Geany runs on.  This is probably why many
 applications are not workspace aware.

Gedit does the right thing.

Erik
-- 
--
Erik de Castro Lopo
http://www.mega-nerd.com/
___
Geany mailing list
Geany@uvena.de
http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany


Re: [Geany] Per-workspace instance of Geany

2011-01-23 Thread Lex Trotman
Hiya,

On 24 January 2011 01:35, Dimitar Zhekov dimitar.zhe...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 13:07:31 +1100
 Lex Trotman ele...@gmail.com wrote:

 a. who owns the preferences? preventing multiple instances from
 changing preferences is very limiting, if they can all change them,
 who saves their set when Geany terminates? and how to lock them
 irrespective of the filesystem they reside on to prevent scrambled
 preferences?

 Windows: the instances are stopped one by one. The last one wins.

Kinda arbitary :-)

 X11: the session management supports instances.

So who decides who wins?


 b. how do you restart multiple instances? which leads to session
 management being required, but Geany has two potential implementations
 of that and no clear path forward yet

 It has a complete sm for the current single-instance behaviour, and an
 incomplete multi-instance sm for the non-implemented multi-instance
 behaviour. So the real question is, do we plan to introduce any multi
 instancing in Geany in the foreseeable future? If not, the last
 single-instance sm applies against 5530, and is quite stable.

I didn't realise that the single instance was working, now 0.20 is out
maybe its worth prompting Nick, Enrico, Frank et al because it would
be worthwhile adding the ability for Geany to close and re-open with
the session.

The question of course was about multi instance, and as you say its still ...


 c. the same issues relating to preferences apply to project files
 being used by more than one instance, or if a project can be open in
 only one instance how to enforce that?

 The same answer as for a. and b.

There wasn't a user acceptable multi-instance answer in a or b.


 d. and of course these also apply to the same document file being open
 in multiple instances, at logout/shutdown who's copy gets saved? how
 do you detect the fact so you can at least warn the user? remember
 that locking and the like don't work on remote filesystems.

 Both Windows and X11-sm will ask you for any modified files.

 (In the current implementation, both simply terminate.)

Making incorporation of the single instance sm patch even more worthwhile.

But that doesn't help the user to decide which of multiple instances
is the correct one to save the prefs/project/file from.

Cheers
Lex


 --
 E-gards: Jimmy
 ___
 Geany mailing list
 Geany@uvena.de
 http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany

___
Geany mailing list
Geany@uvena.de
http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany


Re: [Geany] Per-workspace instance of Geany

2011-01-23 Thread Erik de Castro Lopo
Lex Trotman wrote:

 On MS Windows?

Windows doesn't have workspace, or rather it does, but 99.99%
of people don't use them. Even the vast majority of windows 
developers don't use them.

Contrast that with Linux where well over 90% of people use them.
For developers, its very close to 100% that use workspaces.

 On KDE? 

Yes, I've tested this. I reported the results of that testing
on the devel list.

 If Geany only had the number of programmer hours that Gedit does ...

I've tried getting patches in. The development list was at best,
slow to respond. Many of my patches were never responded to at
all. And while I was following the devel list, I was not the 
only one being roundly ignored by the people with SVN commit
access.

You can't complain about lack of developer hours and then keep
development as an exclusive club for a small inner circle.

Erik
-- 
--
Erik de Castro Lopo
http://www.mega-nerd.com/
___
Geany mailing list
Geany@uvena.de
http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany


Re: [Geany] Per-workspace instance of Geany

2011-01-23 Thread Lex Trotman
On 24 January 2011 11:32, Erik de Castro Lopo mle+to...@mega-nerd.com wrote:
 Lex Trotman wrote:

 On MS Windows?

 Windows doesn't have workspace, or rather it does, but 99.99%
 of people don't use them. Even the vast majority of windows
 developers don't use them.

 Contrast that with Linux where well over 90% of people use them.
 For developers, its very close to 100% that use workspaces.

-1 me, but I do use two monitors instead :-)

I suspect your contention is a significant overstatement, but then
neither of us actually has the statistics to prove it :-)


 On KDE?

 Yes, I've tested this. I reported the results of that testing
 on the devel list.

 If Geany only had the number of programmer hours that Gedit does ...

 I've tried getting patches in. The development list was at best,
 slow to respond. Many of my patches were never responded to at
 all. And while I was following the devel list, I was not the
 only one being roundly ignored by the people with SVN commit
 access.

 You can't complain about lack of developer hours and then keep
 development as an exclusive club for a small inner circle.

Erik,

I'm sorry you feel that you were ignored.

Everyone in the Geany inner circle as you call it, only works on
Geany in their own time, and they all have other things to do, they
move house, they take holidays, their internet goes down (all happened
in 2010)...  So yes, response time can be variable, and busy people
don't always read all the messages in a conversation etc, its the
nature of a small project.

If you have constructive suggestions they will be welcome I'm sure,
but remember that big changes of process or code will be difficult to
have accepted due to the limited time people have to consider and
understand the proposals, and to implement and test the changes,
incremental change is the way to approach things when resources are
thin.

As to Gedit, it has only one instance with multiple windows (my option
3) so many of the problems don't apply, but refactoring Geany to
support multiple top levels is a big change.

Cheers
Lex


 Erik
 --
 --
 Erik de Castro Lopo
 http://www.mega-nerd.com/
 ___
 Geany mailing list
 Geany@uvena.de
 http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany

___
Geany mailing list
Geany@uvena.de
http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany


Re: [Geany] Per-workspace instance of Geany

2011-01-23 Thread Eugene Arshinov
On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 11:22:33 +1100%
Lex Trotman ele...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hiya,
 
 On 24 January 2011 01:35, Dimitar Zhekov dimitar.zhe...@gmail.com
 wrote:
  On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 13:07:31 +1100
  Lex Trotman ele...@gmail.com wrote:
 
  a. who owns the preferences? preventing multiple instances from
  changing preferences is very limiting, if they can all change them,
  who saves their set when Geany terminates? and how to lock them
  irrespective of the filesystem they reside on to prevent scrambled
  preferences?
 
  Windows: the instances are stopped one by one. The last one wins.
 
 Kinda arbitary :-)
 
  X11: the session management supports instances.
 
 So who decides who wins?
 
 
  b. how do you restart multiple instances? which leads to session
  management being required, but Geany has two potential
  implementations of that and no clear path forward yet
 
  It has a complete sm for the current single-instance behaviour, and
  an incomplete multi-instance sm for the non-implemented
  multi-instance behaviour. So the real question is, do we plan to
  introduce any multi instancing in Geany in the foreseeable future?
  If not, the last single-instance sm applies against 5530, and is
  quite stable.
 
 I didn't realise that the single instance was working, now 0.20 is out
 maybe its worth prompting Nick, Enrico, Frank et al because it would
 be worthwhile adding the ability for Geany to close and re-open with
 the session.
 
 The question of course was about multi instance, and as you say its
 still ...


It will be fine if Dimitar's implementation is included in trunk.  It
is more right than mine.  Moreover, it does not contain so much
miscellaneous stuff unrelated to session management.

 
 
  c. the same issues relating to preferences apply to project files
  being used by more than one instance, or if a project can be open
  in only one instance how to enforce that?
 
  The same answer as for a. and b.
 
 There wasn't a user acceptable multi-instance answer in a or b.
 
 
  d. and of course these also apply to the same document file being
  open in multiple instances, at logout/shutdown who's copy gets
  saved? how do you detect the fact so you can at least warn the
  user? remember that locking and the like don't work on remote
  filesystems.
 
  Both Windows and X11-sm will ask you for any modified files.
 
  (In the current implementation, both simply terminate.)
 
 Making incorporation of the single instance sm patch even more
 worthwhile.
 
 But that doesn't help the user to decide which of multiple instances
 is the correct one to save the prefs/project/file from.
 
 Cheers
 Lex
 
 
  --
  E-gards: Jimmy
  ___
  Geany mailing list
  Geany@uvena.de
  http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany
 
 ___
 Geany mailing list
 Geany@uvena.de
 http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany
___
Geany mailing list
Geany@uvena.de
http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany