On Wed, 2006-02-08 at 16:22 +0900, Carsten Haitzler wrote: > > Would it be worth my time to create a patch to add the C API to Edje? > > I'm just wondering if this was a "nice to have" that hasn't been > > implemented yet. If so, I can do a little work on a patch. If it's a > > "not going to happen" then i'll leave it be and continue to use signals. > > whats wrong with using signals? signals are a subset of the edje message queue > api - this is basicalyl an ipc system for process <-> edje to talk back and > forth. settign the state explicitly kind of bypasses the channel by setting > something directly - it kind of is a bit evil imho. if it's a nmatter of just > gettign tired of writign signal handler programs... write a macro so it > becoems > a 1 liner :) >
That answers my question of whether or not I should write a patch. ;-) I have no problem with using signals. I've already implemented it into the code that i'm working on. I was just curious if there was a faster way, but I do understand your point. I'll look into that macro thing. Thx for the tip. Ed ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=103432&bid=230486&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
