Re: [Gimp-developer] replacing gimp-remote
Hi, 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 suggestions. > (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. Sven ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] replacing gimp-remote
Hi, On Sun, 2007-01-21 at 20:14 +0100, Alessandro Falappa wrote: > If there's no mean to detect d-bus availability one can leave the > choice between using either the new code or gimp-remote to the user > via configure switches. We can detect the availability of the dbus-glib bindings at build time. But there is still the possibility that no dbus daemon is running in the session where gimp is being used. Sven ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] replacing gimp-remote
Il giorno 19/gen/07, alle ore 20:30, Sven Neumann ha scritto: > Hi, > > On Fri, 2007-01-19 at 10:05 +0100, Alessandro Falappa wrote: > >>> (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. >> >> IMHO yes. > > May I ask why that's your opinion? Misunderstanding of question from my side. I actually meant "yes, the new d-bus approach should be preferred over gimp-remote". If there's no mean to detect d-bus availability one can leave the choice between using either the new code or gimp-remote to the user via configure switches. Cheers. -- Alessandro Falappa web: http://www.falappa.net -- Alessandro Falappa web: http://www.falappa.net ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] replacing gimp-remote
Hi, On Fri, 2007-01-19 at 10:05 +0100, Alessandro Falappa wrote: > > (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. > > IMHO yes. May I ask why that's your opinion? Sven ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] replacing gimp-remote
Hi, On Fri, 2007-01-19 at 08:48 -0800, William Skaggs wrote: > >(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. > > My understanding is that d-bus doesn't work on MS Windows yet. Sure, but how is that related? There are other platforms where it is also likely not going to be available. My question was about what to do when dbus-glib bindings are detected at configuration time. We could decide not to install gimp-remote under these circumstances. We could also argue that people have gotten used to gimp-remote. And that it doesn't hurt to build and install it no matter if the gimp executable has similar built-in functionality or not. Sven ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] replacing gimp-remote
On Fri, 2007-01-19 at 08:48 -0800, William Skaggs wrote: > Sven wrote: > > >(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. > > My understanding is that d-bus doesn't work on MS Windows yet. And so doesn't gimp-remote -> no regression :) ciao, --mitch ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] replacing gimp-remote
Sven wrote: >(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. My understanding is that d-bus doesn't work on MS Windows yet. -- Bill __ __ __ __ Sent via the CNPRC Email system at primate.ucdavis.edu ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] replacing gimp-remote
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. I agree: from a translator point of view I would find useful the capability of launching two GIMP instances with different locales (from two terminals with a properly set LANG environment variable) > (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? Yes. Would this behaviour cope also with an instance running in a workspace not currently displayed ? > (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. IMHO yes. -- Alessandro Falappa web: http://www.falappa.net/ ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
