On Thu, 30 Sep 2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Another option would be to have an additional input channel to ion which > is set to a fifo on the machine, assuming the OS has got such a notion. (I > know some window managers implement something like this.) Writing to the > fifo is then equivalent to sending input to the window manager, except it > can be done by any process.
Why would you want to cripple the network socket concept in favor of a FIFO? Typically you'd use a FIFO where performance is a concern, and I don't think any of the operations I proposed would be resource-intensive. Also, a local network connection is very fast - depending on the particulars of the OS, it may be as fast as a FIFO. > Presumably this becomes networkable using ssh? You could do it, sure, but it's a really bad idea. Users would have to jump through hoops to get remote management done. Why cripple networking and then try to enter it in the race anyway? > The reason I was vaguely thinking about this is that I use a single emacs > for all my editing and aliased emacs to emacs-client, so that typing > > emacs file.txt > > in an xterm opens file.txt in the currently open emacs. One thing it'd be > nice to do is set if to also `query_gotoclient' the emacs window, and I > guess a fifo would make this possible. However, I decided trying to > implement this was far too much work for too little benefit. You should look into gnuclient/gnuserv or emacsclient, they do exactly this sort of thing. You can get a new window to come up, which will probably be convenient for you. I used to use this to edit mail in mutt until I discovered Gnus. Ted
