Re: Bonobo Unique Application

["Gustavo J. A. M. " Carneiro <gjc inescporto pt>]

On Sex, 2003-04-11 at 13:09, Alexander Larsson wrote:
> On 9 Apr 2003, Gustavo J. A. M.  Carneiro wrote:
> 
> >   The following patches implement "Unique Application" (TM) in
> > libbonobo.  It is an attempt to automate/simplify the code that ensures
> > that only one application instance is running per display[1], as seen in
> > galeon and gnome-terminal, for example.
> > 
> >   Summary of bonobo-activation changes:
> >         - There is a special flag in
> >         Bonobo::ObjectDirectory::register_new to make it possible to
> >         register a server without a corresponding .server file;
> >         - Bonobo::ObjectDirectory::register_new also returns the
> >         existing object, in case one has been registered earlier.
> > 
> >   Summary of libbonobo changes:
> >         - A Bonobo::Application interface and BonoboApplication
> >         implementation, which represents the unique application server.
> >         - A BonoboAppClient which can send messages to the
> >         Bonobo::Application.  The relevant interface method is:
> > 
> > +       interface Application : Bonobo::Unknown {
> > +                typedef sequence<any> ArgList;
> > +                  // Send a message to the application
> > +               any message (in string msg, in ArgList args);
> > +
> > +       };
> > 
> >         So, you can send any message you like. There is an application
> >         API for sending messages, eg.
> >         
> > retval = bonobo_app_client_msg_send (client, "msg",
> >                                      G_TYPE_FLOAT, 1.0,
> >                                      G_TYPE_INT, 2,
> >                                      G_TYPE_NONE);
> > (retval is a GValue, the return value for the message)
> > 
> >         For receiving messages, connect the signal "message" on the
> >         BonoboApplication object:
> 
> You need to queue the signal emission in an idle, or you'll create lots of 
> reentrancy bugs.

  Reentrancy doesn't cause bugs in the library code, as far as I can
see.  It could cause bugs in the application code, of course, in which
case the application programmer is responsible for them.
  Do you still think I should queue the signal emission, to protect the
application programmer?  I'm not completely convinced that I should, but
if you insist, I'm not completely against it either. :)
  Thanks for your comment.

-- 
Gustavo Joćo Alves Marques Carneiro
<gjc inescporto pt> <gustavo users sourceforge net>