Elijah Newren wrote:
>> And gedit will be started if it isn't already, and reused otherwise,
>> with no race conditions.
>
> Uh, with no race conditions affecting the number of gedit processes, I
> think you mean. There's focus and workspace race conditions, unless
> D-Bus launches gedit appropr
On 9/24/06, Havoc Pennington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Though I guess either way, you have essentially zero chance of getting
> this right without using libstartup-notification ... which might be the
> bigger picture point.
Actually as long as you aren't forking/execing a new process,
libstartu
On 9/24/06, Alex Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is exactly the situation BMPx is in, too.
>
> It has pretty cool effects for, say, file managers, too. Consider that
> gnomevfs.show_uri had the support to read a D-Bus bus-name and object
> path from a .desktop file for an application, and i
On 9/24/06, Alex Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 2006-09-24 at 09:13 -0400, Owen Taylor wrote:
> > Is "extensible" compatible with hiding the gory details of start-up
> > notification timestamps? I don't know. I don't have a good sense
> > of what a prototypical D-Bus exporting applicati
(Crap, *sends to list this time round*)
On Sun, 2006-09-24 at 23:28 +0100, Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro wrote:
> Dom, 2006-09-24 às 16:57 +0100, Alex Jones escreveu:
> > On Sun, 2006-09-24 at 09:43 -0600, Elijah Newren wrote:
> > >
> > > GUnique already uses D-Bus (with bacon as a backup). So, how
Elijah Newren wrote:
>> http://live.gnome.org/DesktopAppsAsDBusServices
>>
>> (Crappy write-up, but I just haven't had time to sort it out. Sorry!)
>
> GUnique already uses D-Bus (with bacon as a backup). So, how is your
> proposal different than GUnique? (Other than startup-notification not
> b
Dom, 2006-09-24 às 16:57 +0100, Alex Jones escreveu:
> On Sun, 2006-09-24 at 09:43 -0600, Elijah Newren wrote:
> >
> > GUnique already uses D-Bus (with bacon as a backup). So, how is your
> > proposal different than GUnique? (Other than startup-notification not
> > being mentioned in your propos
On Sun, 2006-09-24 at 09:13 -0400, Owen Taylor wrote:
> On Sun, 2006-09-24 at 09:43 -0600, Elijah Newren wrote:
>
> > > (Crappy write-up, but I just haven't had time to sort it out. Sorry!)
> >
> > GUnique already uses D-Bus (with bacon as a backup). So, how is your
> > proposal different than G
On Sun, 2006-09-24 at 09:43 -0600, Elijah Newren wrote:
> > (Crappy write-up, but I just haven't had time to sort it out. Sorry!)
>
> GUnique already uses D-Bus (with bacon as a backup). So, how is your
> proposal different than GUnique? (Other than startup-notification not
> being mentioned in
On Sun, 2006-09-24 at 09:43 -0600, Elijah Newren wrote:
> On 9/24/06, Alex Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi, list
> >
> > As an alternative to GUnique, you could do the kind of thing Maemo does
> > just by using D-Bus.
>
> If "just by using D-Bus" means what I think it does, then all deskto
On 9/24/06, Alex Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi, list
>
> As an alternative to GUnique, you could do the kind of thing Maemo does
> just by using D-Bus.
If "just by using D-Bus" means what I think it does, then all desktop
apps doing so are broken. You need to handle startup-notification t
Hi, list
As an alternative to GUnique, you could do the kind of thing Maemo does
just by using D-Bus.
http://live.gnome.org/DesktopAppsAsDBusServices
(Crappy write-up, but I just haven't had time to sort it out. Sorry!)
On Sun, 2006-09-24 at 16:07 +0100, Emmanuele Bassi wrote:
> Hi;
>
> On Sun
Hi;
On Sun, 2006-09-24 at 13:47 +0200, Marco Barisione wrote:
> Emmanuele Bassi wrote:
> >> On Windows AF_UNIX is not available, but Windows has named pipes that
> >> are more similar to sockets than to Unix named pipes. However only the
> >> client part of named pipes is supported on Windows 9
Emmanuele Bassi wrote:
>>> Is this API appropriate for GTK+ and adaptable for use with Windows
>>> and OS X?
>> OS X could use the bacon backend (that uses Unix domain sockets).
>>
>> On Windows AF_UNIX is not available, but Windows has named pipes that
>> are more similar to sockets than to Unix
On 9/23/06, Steve Frécinaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jeff Waugh wrote:
> > Can we use it as-is (or as well-defined cut'n'paste code) in GNOME 2.18 and
> > plan towards migrating to a GTK+ 2.12 version in GNOME 2.20? Let's at least
> > have a plan for it, otherwise we're just adding yet another
Jeff Waugh wrote:
> Can we use it as-is (or as well-defined cut'n'paste code) in GNOME 2.18 and
> plan towards migrating to a GTK+ 2.12 version in GNOME 2.20? Let's at least
> have a plan for it, otherwise we're just adding yet another [as above] with
> little active thought for our users, distribu
On Sat, 2006-09-23 at 19:39 +0200, Marco Barisione wrote:
> Jeff Waugh wrote:
> > Is this API appropriate for GTK+ and adaptable for use with Windows
> > and OS X?
>
> OS X could use the bacon backend (that uses Unix domain sockets).
>
> On Windows AF_UNIX is not available, but Windows has named
Jeff Waugh wrote:
> Is this API appropriate for GTK+ and adaptable for use with Windows
> and OS X?
OS X could use the bacon backend (that uses Unix domain sockets).
On Windows AF_UNIX is not available, but Windows has named pipes that
are more similar to sockets than to Unix named pipes. Howeve
On Fri, 2006-09-22 at 05:49 -0400, Richard Hughes wrote:
> So I propose, tell maintainers to link against linguniqueapp (as it's
> more sane that what we have already[1]) and then depreciate it in a
> couple of years time when we've decided where it belongs. This means
> maintainers like me get sin
On Fri, 2006-09-22 at 02:12 -0600, Elijah Newren wrote:
> On 9/22/06, Alexander Larsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Uhm? Why not use X for IPC?
>
> *shrug* I remember that we (Matthias, Vytas, and I) discussed D-Bus,
> Bonobo, and Bacon (since there were several Gnome applications using
> each
Alexander Larsson wrote:
> One advantage of using X would be that it works for remote X clients
> too.
>
I think it'd be a mistake to start using X for all ipc for that reason -
you'd end up never using dbus, and X is kind of a sucky IPC.
To solve this for dbus there are two basic approaches, o
Hi;
On Fri, 2006-09-22 at 13:49 +0200, Alexander Larsson wrote:
> > *shrug* I remember that we (Matthias, Vytas, and I) discussed D-Bus,
> > Bonobo, and Bacon (since there were several Gnome applications using
> > each of those for their single-instance mechanism) and X (which
> > Matthias brou
On Fri, 2006-09-22 at 02:12 -0600, Elijah Newren wrote:
> On 9/22/06, Alexander Larsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Uhm? Why not use X for IPC?
>
> *shrug* I remember that we (Matthias, Vytas, and I) discussed D-Bus,
> Bonobo, and Bacon (since there were several Gnome applications using
> each
On Thu, 2006-09-21 at 19:36 -0600, Elijah Newren wrote:
> I agree that we don't really want another shared library, long term.
> Luckily, it should be easy to update apps when GUnique becomes part of
> some other library, as the code required to use GUnique is pretty
> small. As to how we get ther
On 9/22/06, Alexander Larsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Uhm? Why not use X for IPC?
*shrug* I remember that we (Matthias, Vytas, and I) discussed D-Bus,
Bonobo, and Bacon (since there were several Gnome applications using
each of those for their single-instance mechanism) and X (which
Matthias
> Uhm? Why not use X for IPC?
Because clearly you would be hit by a bus if you considered such outrageous
notions.
- Jeff
--
linux.conf.au 2007: Sydney, Australia http://lca2007.linux.org.au/
"Whatcha wanna be when you grow up?"
"Eig
On Thu, 2006-09-21 at 19:36 -0600, Elijah Newren wrote:
> On 9/21/06, Jeff Waugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Before recommending that everyone use GUnique, could we define a
> > migration path for it to enter the platform? We really don't need yet
> > another
> > shared library, and yet another
On 9/21/06, Jeff Waugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Before recommending that everyone use GUnique, could we define a
> migration path for it to enter the platform? We really don't need yet another
> shared library, and yet another module to release, and yet another separate
> API to learn. Is this
> Um, oops... Richard just pointed out to me how I had forgotten that Vytas
> had done a very good job making the GUnique library work as well as
> possible with gtk+-2.10. So, you can still implement it this cycle. Some
> notes:
>
> 1) Richard has imported the GUnique library as libgunique i
29 matches
Mail list logo
