Re: [Evolution-hackers] gtkhtml - composer not starting ...

[Havoc Pennington <hp redhat com>]

Michael Meeks <michael ximian com> writes: 
> If you have a magic bullet for cross
> process lifecycle management though I'm gagging to hear your suggestion
> - please expand.

There are many possible solutions. For example, have explicit
ownership (the X server owns all apps connected to it), or have a
client-server where the server exits when unused and the clients
manage their own lifecycle and can survive the server changing
(gconf), or leases, or something that involves the activation server,
or whatever you like. Many schemes work fine.

> > Anyway, yeah long term I would rather see threads than hacks that fix
> > the problem "most of the time when you don't _need_ reentrancy,"
> 
> 	Doh, why does everyone say it's a hack. Examine for example the X
> protocol, which is essentially a transport (say CORBA) and a load of
> non-reentering calls, and an idle event processing loop. Well, with the
> [ no_reenter, handle_at_idle ] markup, we have - precicely that model,
> with the additional flexibility of handing some things re-enterantly if
> we think we can cope with the gob-smacking complexity of that.

The difference to me is just that whatever we are doing seems to
involve an enormous amount of time and code, and many simpler
solutions don't. I don't understand the benefits that we get for all
that effort. But I didn't mean to upset you.

Of course I understand that the effort is already partially invested,
with many apps relying on it. I think it's a good idea to add these
features to block reentrancy.

Havoc