Re: GUnique [Was: gnome-utils branched for GNOME 2.16]

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.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]