Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

Am 13.11.2010 um 14:59 schrieb Enrico Forestieri: On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 01:57:54PM +0100, Stephan Witt wrote: Am 13.11.2010 um 13:46 schrieb Jean-Marc Lasgouttes: Le 13 nov. 10 à 12:29, Enrico Forestieri a écrit : I don't know how that single instance enforcement is attained, but if

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

Am 13.11.2010 um 14:59 schrieb Enrico Forestieri: > On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 01:57:54PM +0100, Stephan Witt wrote: > >> Am 13.11.2010 um 13:46 schrieb Jean-Marc Lasgouttes: >> >>> Le 13 nov. 10 à 12:29, Enrico Forestieri a écrit : I don't know how that single instance enforcement is

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 09:28:07PM -0500, BH wrote: On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 5:50 PM, Enrico Forestieri for...@lyx.org wrote: On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 11:43:57PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: Le 12 nov. 10 à 22:34, Enrico Forestieri a écrit : Without any preference set or command line

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 01:47:22AM +0100, Pavel Sanda wrote: Richard Heck wrote: On 11/12/2010 04:34 PM, Enrico Forestieri wrote: Here is a complete patch with preferences and command line switches. It is designed such that an already running instance is contacted only when a document

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

Le 13 nov. 10 à 12:29, Enrico Forestieri a écrit : I don't know how that single instance enforcement is attained, but if that is true, you should not be able to launch a new instance of lyx by using the --no-remote switch. So, launch lyx a first time, then try to get a new instance using lyx

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

Am 13.11.2010 um 13:46 schrieb Jean-Marc Lasgouttes: Le 13 nov. 10 à 12:29, Enrico Forestieri a écrit : I don't know how that single instance enforcement is attained, but if that is true, you should not be able to launch a new instance of lyx by using the --no-remote switch. So, launch lyx a

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 01:57:54PM +0100, Stephan Witt wrote: Am 13.11.2010 um 13:46 schrieb Jean-Marc Lasgouttes: Le 13 nov. 10 à 12:29, Enrico Forestieri a écrit : I don't know how that single instance enforcement is attained, but if that is true, you should not be able to launch a new

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 09:28:07PM -0500, BH wrote: > On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 5:50 PM, Enrico Forestieri wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 11:43:57PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > > > >> Le 12 nov. 10 à 22:34, Enrico Forestieri a écrit : > >> >Without any preference set

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 01:47:22AM +0100, Pavel Sanda wrote: > Richard Heck wrote: > > On 11/12/2010 04:34 PM, Enrico Forestieri wrote: > >> Here is a complete patch with preferences and command line switches. > >> > >> It is designed such that an already running instance is contacted only > >>

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

Le 13 nov. 10 à 12:29, Enrico Forestieri a écrit : I don't know how that single instance enforcement is attained, but if that is true, you should not be able to launch a new instance of lyx by using the --no-remote switch. So, launch lyx a first time, then try to get a new instance using "lyx

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

Am 13.11.2010 um 13:46 schrieb Jean-Marc Lasgouttes: > Le 13 nov. 10 à 12:29, Enrico Forestieri a écrit : >> I don't know how that single instance enforcement is attained, but if >> that is true, you should not be able to launch a new instance of lyx >> by using the --no-remote switch. So, launch

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 01:57:54PM +0100, Stephan Witt wrote: > Am 13.11.2010 um 13:46 schrieb Jean-Marc Lasgouttes: > > > Le 13 nov. 10 à 12:29, Enrico Forestieri a écrit : > >> I don't know how that single instance enforcement is attained, but if > >> that is true, you should not be able to

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 04:32:26PM +0100, Enrico Forestieri wrote: Here is another somewhat polished version. So, should I commit this patch? -- Enrico

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

On 11/11/2010 10:32 AM, Enrico Forestieri wrote: On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 04:59:01AM +0100, Enrico Forestieri wrote: On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 02:57:48AM +0100, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: I'd like you to guide me a bit in with respect to using the pipes then. Detecting whether a pipe exists is

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

Richard Heck wrote: The only thing lacking here is the preference stuff, but someone else could do that, if you wish. yes it should be under preferences. personally i would like to run always without this feature (dont like when crash in one window kill all other windows). btw what happens

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

yes it should be under preferences. personally i would like to run always without this feature (dont like when crash in one window kill all other windows). Hmm.. you're working on multiple documents in the same time. Why do we have the multiple window option then in LyX ? (And I thought you

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: yes it should be under preferences. personally i would like to run always without this feature (dont like when crash in one window kill all other windows). Hmm.. you're working on multiple documents in the same time. Why do we have the multiple window

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

Here is a complete patch with preferences and command line switches. It is designed such that an already running instance is contacted only when a document is to be loaded. So, if you export from command line, things go as usual. You can set a preference for the default behavior, but you can

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

On 11/12/2010 04:34 PM, Enrico Forestieri wrote: Here is a complete patch with preferences and command line switches. It is designed such that an already running instance is contacted only when a document is to be loaded. So, if you export from command line, things go as usual. You can set a

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

Le 12 nov. 10 à 22:34, Enrico Forestieri a écrit : Without any preference set or command line switch specified, the default is to try to load documents in an already running instance, as I think that this the most logical behavior. However, once you untick the Single instance check box in the

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 11:43:57PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: Le 12 nov. 10 à 22:34, Enrico Forestieri a écrit : Without any preference set or command line switch specified, the default is to try to load documents in an already running instance, as I think that this the most logical

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

Richard Heck wrote: On 11/12/2010 04:34 PM, Enrico Forestieri wrote: Here is a complete patch with preferences and command line switches. It is designed such that an already running instance is contacted only when a document is to be loaded. So, if you export from command line, things go as

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 5:50 PM, Enrico Forestieri for...@lyx.org wrote: On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 11:43:57PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: Le 12 nov. 10 à 22:34, Enrico Forestieri a écrit : Without any preference set or command line switch specified, the default is to try to load

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 04:32:26PM +0100, Enrico Forestieri wrote: > Here is another somewhat polished version. So, should I commit this patch? -- Enrico

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

On 11/11/2010 10:32 AM, Enrico Forestieri wrote: On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 04:59:01AM +0100, Enrico Forestieri wrote: On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 02:57:48AM +0100, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: I'd like you to guide me a bit in with respect to using the pipes then. Detecting whether a pipe exists is

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

Richard Heck wrote: > The only thing lacking here is the preference stuff, but someone else could > do that, if you wish. yes it should be under preferences. personally i would like to run always without this feature (dont like when crash in one window kill all other windows). btw what happens

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

> yes it should be under preferences. personally i would like to run always > without this feature (dont like when crash in one window kill all other > windows). Hmm.. you're working on multiple documents in the same time. Why do we have the multiple window option then in LyX ? (And I thought

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: > > yes it should be under preferences. personally i would like to run always > > without this feature (dont like when crash in one window kill all other > > windows). > > Hmm.. you're working on multiple documents in the same time. Why do we > have the multiple

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

Here is a complete patch with preferences and command line switches. It is designed such that an already running instance is contacted only when a document is to be loaded. So, if you export from command line, things go as usual. You can set a preference for the default behavior, but you can

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

On 11/12/2010 04:34 PM, Enrico Forestieri wrote: Here is a complete patch with preferences and command line switches. It is designed such that an already running instance is contacted only when a document is to be loaded. So, if you export from command line, things go as usual. You can set a

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

Le 12 nov. 10 à 22:34, Enrico Forestieri a écrit : Without any preference set or command line switch specified, the default is to try to load documents in an already running instance, as I think that this the most logical behavior. However, once you untick the "Single instance" check box in

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 11:43:57PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > Le 12 nov. 10 à 22:34, Enrico Forestieri a écrit : > >Without any preference set or command line switch specified, the > >default > >is to try to load documents in an already running instance, as I think > >that this the most

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

Richard Heck wrote: > On 11/12/2010 04:34 PM, Enrico Forestieri wrote: >> Here is a complete patch with preferences and command line switches. >> >> It is designed such that an already running instance is contacted only >> when a document is to be loaded. So, if you export from command line, >>

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 5:50 PM, Enrico Forestieri wrote: > On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 11:43:57PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > >> Le 12 nov. 10 à 22:34, Enrico Forestieri a écrit : >> >Without any preference set or command line switch specified, the >> >default >> >is to try

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

Enrico Forestieri wrote: Due to this, I think that it means that the code can be basically destabilized, provided that there's consensus. Fine, good to know. yes. do you know the immigration story of kurt goedel? before entering u.s. he went closely throught the constitution to be prepared for

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 04:59:01AM +0100, Enrico Forestieri wrote: On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 02:57:48AM +0100, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: I'd like you to guide me a bit in with respect to using the pipes then. Detecting whether a pipe exists is indeed easy. However, I need to add some

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

Enrico Forestieri wrote: > Due to this, I think that it means that the code can be "basically" > destabilized, provided that there's "consensus". Fine, good to know. yes. do you know the immigration story of kurt goedel? before entering u.s. he went closely throught the constitution to be

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 04:59:01AM +0100, Enrico Forestieri wrote: > On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 02:57:48AM +0100, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: > > I'd like you to guide me a bit in with respect to using the pipes > > then. Detecting whether a pipe exists is indeed easy. However, I need > > to add

[patch] Single Instance LyX

Hi all, These two patches implement a single instance LyX. I can add some preference options. - What kind of preference do we need ? - Do we want to include the code for QtSingleApplication in our tree ? - We then depend on QtNetwork.dll/lib and should be included in the installers. - The

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

These two patches implement a single instance LyX. Comments ? Pavel, Do you think it has a chance to make it into 2.0.0 ? Vincent

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

On 11/10/2010 12:14 PM, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: Hi all, These two patches implement a single instance LyX. Nice work! I can add some preference options. - What kind of preference do we need ? A preference to enable or disable this kind of behavior. So: if

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 06:21:52PM +0100, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: These two patches implement a single instance LyX. Comments ? Pavel, Do you think it has a chance to make it into 2.0.0 ? I think no, if we follow the rules. -- Enrico

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

Pavel, Do you think it has a chance to make it into 2.0.0 ? I think no, if we follow the rules. I thought that the rule was to ask Pavel ;). Vincent

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 06:14:53PM +0100, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: - We then depend on QtNetwork.dll/lib YA dependency. This is bad for a next to useless feature. -- Enrico

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 06:14:53PM +0100, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: http://www.gitorious.com/lyx/lyx/commit/b985f653c03ad9dbf77c9e3dadf9f6d3eeaba8ae http://www.gitorious.com/lyx/lyx/commit/8edf37e21bfbbae23e87210b959ef9dfe5e8e81c or find them attached to the bug:

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

Op 10-11-2010 20:14, Enrico Forestieri schreef: On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 06:14:53PM +0100, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: http://www.gitorious.com/lyx/lyx/commit/b985f653c03ad9dbf77c9e3dadf9f6d3eeaba8ae http://www.gitorious.com/lyx/lyx/commit/8edf37e21bfbbae23e87210b959ef9dfe5e8e81c or find

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

Op 10-11-2010 20:13, Enrico Forestieri schreef: On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 06:14:53PM +0100, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: - We then depend on QtNetwork.dll/lib YA dependency. This is bad for a next to useless feature. We can maybe rewrite it to use pipes. Or we can rewrite the piped code to

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 08:13:48PM +0100, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: Pavel, Do you think it has a chance to make it into 2.0.0 ? I think no, if we follow the rules. I thought that the rule was to ask Pavel ;). http://www.mail-archive.com/lyx-devel@lists.lyx.org/msg163211.html

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

I thought that the rule was to ask Pavel ;). http://www.mail-archive.com/lyx-devel@lists.lyx.org/msg163211.html Development moved to the beta phase which basically means we will no more include new features and focus on polishing the current ones. basically leaves room for

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 08:17:11PM +0100, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: Op 10-11-2010 20:13, Enrico Forestieri schreef: On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 06:14:53PM +0100, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: - We then depend on QtNetwork.dll/lib YA dependency. This is bad for a next to useless feature.

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 08:21:37PM +0100, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: I thought that the rule was to ask Pavel ;). http://www.mail-archive.com/lyx-devel@lists.lyx.org/msg163211.html Development moved to the beta phase which basically means we will no more include new features and focus

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

On 11/10/2010 02:17 PM, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: Op 10-11-2010 20:13, Enrico Forestieri schreef: On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 06:14:53PM +0100, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: - We then depend on QtNetwork.dll/lib YA dependency. This is bad for a next to useless feature. We can maybe rewrite

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 03:10:07PM -0500, Richard Heck wrote: On 11/10/2010 02:17 PM, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: Op 10-11-2010 20:13, Enrico Forestieri schreef: On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 06:14:53PM +0100, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: - We then depend on QtNetwork.dll/lib YA dependency.

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

Enrico Forestieri wrote: Do you think it has a chance to make it into 2.0.0 ? I think no, if we follow the rules. i would like to know whats going on behind this. you dont like that 1. we push new features 2. this feature is evil or 3. the implementation of this feature is not your taste?

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 03:10:07PM -0500, Richard Heck wrote: On 11/10/2010 02:17 PM, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: Op 10-11-2010 20:13, Enrico Forestieri schreef: On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 06:14:53PM +0100, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: - We then depend on QtNetwork.dll/lib YA dependency.

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: - What kind of preference do we need ? [ ] use single instance for all windows i would vote for letting this off by default. - Do we want to include the code for QtSingleApplication in our tree ? - We then depend on QtNetwork.dll/lib and should be included in

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 12:09:01AM +0100, Pavel Sanda wrote: Enrico Forestieri wrote: Do you think it has a chance to make it into 2.0.0 ? I think no, if we follow the rules. i would like to know whats going on behind this. you dont like that 1. we push new features Yes, especially

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 12:14:11AM +0100, Andre Poenitz wrote: On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 03:10:07PM -0500, Richard Heck wrote: On 11/10/2010 02:17 PM, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: Op 10-11-2010 20:13, Enrico Forestieri schreef: On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 06:14:53PM +0100, Vincent van

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

Enrico Forestieri wrote: I think no, if we follow the rules. i would like to know whats going on behind this. you dont like that 1. we push new features Yes, especially not when by the rules they would be basically forbidden. thats misunderstanding. release announcement is public

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

There's already code that checks for an existing lyxpipe. If another instance of lyx is connected to the other end, a message is printed to that effect, otherwise it is a stale pipe (maybe a left over from a previous crash) and is removed. So, instead of printing a message to the console,

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 02:57:48AM +0100, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: I'd like you to guide me a bit in with respect to using the pipes then. Detecting whether a pipe exists is indeed easy. However, I need to add some public functions to the Server interface that relays to LyXComm. Moreover,

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 01:38:27AM +0100, Pavel Sanda wrote: Enrico Forestieri wrote: I think no, if we follow the rules. i would like to know whats going on behind this. you dont like that 1. we push new features Yes, especially not when by the rules they would be basically

[patch] Single Instance LyX

Hi all, These two patches implement a single instance LyX. I can add some preference options. - What kind of preference do we need ? - Do we want to include the code for QtSingleApplication in our tree ? - We then depend on QtNetwork.dll/lib and should be included in the installers. - The

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

> These two patches implement a single instance LyX. > > > Comments ? > Pavel, Do you think it has a chance to make it into 2.0.0 ? Vincent

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

On 11/10/2010 12:14 PM, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: Hi all, These two patches implement a single instance LyX. Nice work! I can add some preference options. - What kind of preference do we need ? A preference to enable or disable this kind of behavior. So: if

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 06:21:52PM +0100, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: > > These two patches implement a single instance LyX. > > > > > > Comments ? > > > > > Pavel, > > Do you think it has a chance to make it into 2.0.0 ? I think no, if we follow the rules. -- Enrico

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

>> >> Pavel, >> >> Do you think it has a chance to make it into 2.0.0 ? > > I think no, if we follow the rules. > I thought that the rule was to ask Pavel ;). Vincent

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 06:14:53PM +0100, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: > - We then depend on QtNetwork.dll/lib YA dependency. This is bad for a next to useless feature. -- Enrico

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 06:14:53PM +0100, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: > http://www.gitorious.com/lyx/lyx/commit/b985f653c03ad9dbf77c9e3dadf9f6d3eeaba8ae > http://www.gitorious.com/lyx/lyx/commit/8edf37e21bfbbae23e87210b959ef9dfe5e8e81c > > or find them attached to the bug: >

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

Op 10-11-2010 20:14, Enrico Forestieri schreef: On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 06:14:53PM +0100, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: http://www.gitorious.com/lyx/lyx/commit/b985f653c03ad9dbf77c9e3dadf9f6d3eeaba8ae http://www.gitorious.com/lyx/lyx/commit/8edf37e21bfbbae23e87210b959ef9dfe5e8e81c or find

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

Op 10-11-2010 20:13, Enrico Forestieri schreef: On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 06:14:53PM +0100, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: - We then depend on QtNetwork.dll/lib YA dependency. This is bad for a next to useless feature. We can maybe rewrite it to use pipes. Or we can rewrite the piped code to

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 08:13:48PM +0100, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: > >> > >> Pavel, > >> > >> Do you think it has a chance to make it into 2.0.0 ? > > > > I think no, if we follow the rules. > > > > I thought that the rule was to ask Pavel ;).

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

I thought that the rule was to ask Pavel ;). http://www.mail-archive.com/lyx-devel@lists.lyx.org/msg163211.html >Development moved to the beta phase which basically means we will no more include new features and focus on polishing the current ones. "basically" leaves room for

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 08:17:11PM +0100, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: > Op 10-11-2010 20:13, Enrico Forestieri schreef: > >On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 06:14:53PM +0100, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: > >>- We then depend on QtNetwork.dll/lib > >YA dependency. This is bad for a next to useless

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 08:21:37PM +0100, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: > > >>I thought that the rule was to ask Pavel ;). > >http://www.mail-archive.com/lyx-devel@lists.lyx.org/msg163211.html > > > > >Development moved to the beta phase which basically means we will > no more include new

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

On 11/10/2010 02:17 PM, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: Op 10-11-2010 20:13, Enrico Forestieri schreef: On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 06:14:53PM +0100, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: - We then depend on QtNetwork.dll/lib YA dependency. This is bad for a next to useless feature. We can maybe rewrite

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 03:10:07PM -0500, Richard Heck wrote: > On 11/10/2010 02:17 PM, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: > > Op 10-11-2010 20:13, Enrico Forestieri schreef: > >>On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 06:14:53PM +0100, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: > >>>- We then depend on QtNetwork.dll/lib > >>YA

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

Enrico Forestieri wrote: > > Do you think it has a chance to make it into 2.0.0 ? > > I think no, if we follow the rules. i would like to know whats going on behind this. you dont like that 1. we push new features 2. this feature is evil or 3. the implementation of this feature is not your

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 03:10:07PM -0500, Richard Heck wrote: > On 11/10/2010 02:17 PM, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: > > Op 10-11-2010 20:13, Enrico Forestieri schreef: > >>On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 06:14:53PM +0100, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: > >>>- We then depend on QtNetwork.dll/lib > >>YA

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: > - What kind of preference do we need ? [ ] use single instance for all windows i would vote for letting this off by default. > - Do we want to include the code for QtSingleApplication in our tree ? > - We then depend on QtNetwork.dll/lib and should be included

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 12:09:01AM +0100, Pavel Sanda wrote: > Enrico Forestieri wrote: > > > Do you think it has a chance to make it into 2.0.0 ? > > > > I think no, if we follow the rules. > > i would like to know whats going on behind this. > you dont like that > 1. we push new features Yes,

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 12:14:11AM +0100, Andre Poenitz wrote: > On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 03:10:07PM -0500, Richard Heck wrote: > > On 11/10/2010 02:17 PM, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: > > > Op 10-11-2010 20:13, Enrico Forestieri schreef: > > >>On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 06:14:53PM +0100, Vincent van

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

Enrico Forestieri wrote: > > > I think no, if we follow the rules. > > > > i would like to know whats going on behind this. > > you dont like that > > 1. we push new features > > Yes, especially not when by the rules they would be "basically" forbidden. thats misunderstanding. release

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

> There's already code that checks for an existing lyxpipe. If another > instance of lyx is connected to the other end, a message is printed > to that effect, otherwise it is a stale pipe (maybe a left over from > a previous crash) and is removed. > > So, instead of printing a message to the

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 02:57:48AM +0100, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: > I'd like you to guide me a bit in with respect to using the pipes > then. Detecting whether a pipe exists is indeed easy. However, I need > to add some public functions to the Server interface that relays to > LyXComm.

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 01:38:27AM +0100, Pavel Sanda wrote: > Enrico Forestieri wrote: > > > > I think no, if we follow the rules. > > > > > > i would like to know whats going on behind this. > > > you dont like that > > > 1. we push new features > > > > Yes, especially not when by the rules