<[EMAIL PROTECTED] ( Marc) (A.) (Lehmann )> writes:

> Yes, you miss the first and last error causes given above. A "local"
> process proves nothing about file accessibility.
> Think about it, X11 is a networked environment. Processes share an
> X-display, but not the filesystem view. Linux for example provides each
> process with it's own filesystem view, and this is expected to be used
> more and more in the future.

"local" of course means on the same file-system, which can easily be
checked by looking at a pid file on that very same file-system and
checking that it corresponds to the GIMP application that announces
itself using an atom on the X server.

> I think having the option of using "gimp-remote" with clearly
> defined limitations (same filesyetm view required) and using "gimp"
> to ensure correctness is preferable over some heuristic that gets it
> right for 95% of the users or so. What advantage does an integrated
> solution bring? As far as -i can see, it's only badly written
> programs that mindlessly use "gimp" when they should offer the
> option of using either gimp or gimp-remote.

The question wouldn't come up so frequently then. Lately things have
improved a bit because the desktop entry specification has become
widely adopted. That doesn't work for all platforms/desktops though.

Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to