to perllib), instead of adding ModuleListenOnly command.
Well, the new command is not a big deal. I just needed to add
some code to close the fvwm_to_app pipes and modify some places to
handle the situation that there is no fvwm_to_app pipe.
To comment on the bashlib (which would be unusable
Hi Dominik,
Are you enjoying the World Cup?
Two reasons: (1) Schedule is an unreliable hack and (2) this
starts a shell every 15 seconds and my goal was to waste as little
cpu as possible (as it interferes with certain time-critical
applications - okay - games).
Hehe. :)
Re: (2)
From
Dominik Vogt wrote:
On Sun, Jun 25, 2006 at 07:18:30PM +1000, Scott Smedley wrote:
Having just looked into how Schedule execute_complex_function() work,
I'm not prepared to blame Schedule just yet.
In my opinion, I don't think FVWM should grab the X server everytime it
executes a complex
On Sun, Jun 25, 2006 at 02:09:49PM -0500, Jacob Bachmeyer wrote:
Is it not possible to determine whether a function must grab as it is
defined? Couldn't adding a line with a modifier that needs a grab set
a this function might need a grab flag?
You want to read this thread (it's long):
Hi Dominik,
That's just one purpose of the command. I was always fond of the
idea to prototype or even implement modules as shell scripts.
Yes, that would be cool. IMHO, I think it would be prudent to create
bashlib (akin to perllib), instead of adding ModuleListenOnly command.
But I
I have just checked in the new command ModuleListenOnly. It works
like Module, but fvwm does not send any messages to such a module.
I am using it to attach a shell script to the module interface
that periodically updates titles of FvwmButtons to display a clock
(in the format I prefer, xclock
On 24 Jun 2006 13:58:30 +0200, Dominik Vogt wrote:
I have just checked in the new command ModuleListenOnly. It works
like Module, but fvwm does not send any messages to such a module.
I am using it to attach a shell script to the module interface
that periodically updates titles of
On Sat, Jun 24, 2006 at 02:08:43PM +, Mikhael Goikhman wrote:
On 24 Jun 2006 13:58:30 +0200, Dominik Vogt wrote:
I have just checked in the new command ModuleListenOnly. It works
like Module, but fvwm does not send any messages to such a module.
I am using it to attach a shell
Hi Dominik Mikhael,
We may write a module FvwmButtonsUpdater that gets an FvwmButtons module
name (alias) and a list of entries, each is: a button id, its update
frequency and a shell command to invoke for title updates (for example,
'date +%T' or 'ps -A --format %C %P %c | sort -n -r | head
+ I PipeRead 'str=$(/bin/ps -A --format %C %P %c | sort -n -r | tail -n1)
Sorry, that should be 'head', of course. (or drop the '-r' flag on 'sort'.)
SCoTT. :)
On Sun, Jun 25, 2006 at 03:22:57AM +1000, Scott Smedley wrote:
We may write a module FvwmButtonsUpdater that gets an FvwmButtons module
name (alias) and a list of entries, each is: a button id, its update
frequency and a shell command to invoke for title updates (for example,
'date +%T' or
On Sun, Jun 25, 2006 at 03:22:57AM +1000, Scott Smedley wrote:
Why use a module for something so simple?
AddToFunc MyPeriodicFunc
+ I PipeRead 'echo SendToModule FvwmButtons ChangeButton clock Title $(date
+%R %a %d.%m.)'
+ I PipeRead 'str=$(/bin/ps -A --format %C %P %c | sort -n -r |
On 24 Jun 2006 16:35:21 +0200, Dominik Vogt wrote:
On Sat, Jun 24, 2006 at 02:08:43PM +, Mikhael Goikhman wrote:
I can't say I am very happy about this. Actually, I would not be happy
about any new feature added without discussion before 2.6.0. :)
Hm, I don't see that happen in
On 6/24/06, Mikhael Goikhman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 24 Jun 2006 16:35:21 +0200, Dominik Vogt wrote:
On Sat, Jun 24, 2006 at 02:08:43PM +, Mikhael Goikhman wrote:
I can't say I am very happy about this. Actually, I would not be happy
about any new feature added without discussion
On Sat, Jun 24, 2006 at 10:09:03PM +0100, seventh guardian wrote:
Can we release a 2.6.0-rc1 and move on? Then while some would
maintain it until a real 2.6.0, some would be working on 2.7. For the
volunteers it's a matter of deciding to either help on perfecting
2.6.0 or on improving 2.7.0.
On 6/24/06, Thomas Adam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Jun 24, 2006 at 10:09:03PM +0100, seventh guardian wrote:
Can we release a 2.6.0-rc1 and move on? Then while some would
maintain it until a real 2.6.0, some would be working on 2.7. For the
volunteers it's a matter of deciding to either
16 matches
Mail list logo
