On Fri, 2007-01-19 at 09:30 +0100, Sven Neumann wrote:

> There are a few things that we probably should address:
> (1) We might need a way to override this behaviour. Under certain
> circumstances it might be useful to have multiple instances of GIMP
> running. A command-line option could be added to enforce this.

There is --new-instance (or just -n) now for this purpose.

> (2) What should happen if gimp is already runnning and gimp is launched
> again but with no files or URIs on the command-line? IMO it would be
> best if gimp exported a method to the bus that allows the toolbox to be
> raised. Instead of launching a second instance, we could just raise the
> first one then. Does that make sense?

GIMP now exports two methods. "Open" takes an array of URIs or
filenames. It silently does nothing if that array is empty. "Activate"
raises the toolbox. The method names are inspired from libguniqueapp but
if anyone wants to come up with something better, I am open for

> (3) Should gimp-remote still be built and installed even if the d-bus
> functionality is built into the gimp exectuable? The patch currently
> doesn't change this, it just removes the reference to gimp-remote from
> the gimp.desktop file.

For now gimp-remote will continue to be built and installed. I hope that
it can be deprecated in the next release.


Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to