On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 01:22:47 +0300, Kai Vehmanen wrote: > This might be a good addition. In any case using pids is not optimal. > This is basicly the same problem as with port names. Either we maintain > two sets of names (one for programs, one for the user-interfaces) or > make a compromise and have something that is usable for both. Requiring > users to map the application instances to pids does not fill this > requirement.
I hadn't thought about having two names. That wouldn;t totaly solve the borblem though, as youd still want unique, easy to read names for the long name. - Steve
