Re: Our (real) problems
- From: Michael Meeks <michael ximian com>
- To: Dan Winship <danw ximian com>
- Cc: <gnome-hackers gnome org>, <gnome-2-0-list gnome org>
- Subject: Re: Our (real) problems
- Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 22:11:10 -0400 (EDT)
On 4 Sep 2001, Dan Winship wrote:
> Why, is the "broken" signal tied to X?
It ain't :-) it uses the unix domain socket, and listens for
the connection being destroyed.
Using the X socket is problematic with regard to re-parenting,
but apparently we can work around this by doing re-parenting more
Of course, freeing an object when all it's open connections
are torn down has some interesting lifecycle issues too :-) but it
seems a good enough solution for the control / control-frame pair to
Since we're interested only particularly in local machines,
for control / control-frame cases we can rely on the somewhat 'nicer'
more predictable and rapid behavior of UDSs vs. general TCP timeouts I
think, and avoid pinging.
mmeeks gnu org <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot
] [Thread Prev