Re: GUnique [Was: gnome-utils branched for GNOME 2.16]
- From: Shaun McCance <shaunm gnome org>
- To: Elijah Newren <newren gmail com>
- Cc: Alexander Larsson <alexl redhat com>, desktop-devel-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: GUnique [Was: gnome-utils branched for GNOME 2.16]
- Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 10:30:46 -0500
On Fri, 2006-09-22 at 02:12 -0600, Elijah Newren wrote:
> On 9/22/06, Alexander Larsson <alexl redhat com> 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 brought up and also since Mozilla/Firefox uses it for its
> single-instance mechanism). However, I no longer recall any details
> about this particular choice since I was more interested in the WM
> interaction details (surprise, surprise). It may have been that Vytas
> was familiar with D-Bus and Bacon and we figured it was more important
> to get other details worked out first, but I just don't remember.
> However, Vytas did design GUnique to make the backend easy to
> transparently replace.
I frequently use XNest at work. Some of the builds I have
to run automatically open and close hundreds of windows.
So I run the builds inside XNest, and I don't have to look
at all those windows popping up on my screen.
If I try to open an application inside XNest that I already
have available outside XNest, and if that application uses
one of our existing single-instance schemes (like bonobo),
I get another window *outside* the XNest, which is annoying.
Using X for IPC would, presumably, solve this.
] [Thread Prev