Re: GtkApplication and argc/arv

[Murray Cumming <murrayc murrayc com>]

On Sat, 2011-03-19 at 09:44 -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
> Hi Murray,
> 
> On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 9:11 AM, Murray Cumming <murrayc murrayc com> wrote:
> 
> > For this and other unrelated reasons, I will remove Gtk::Application
> > from gtkmm 3.0.0. I can't wrap an API that I don't understand
> 
> It's not that you don't understand it exactly, it's that you don't
> agree, correct?

No. I mean what I said and I'm getting rather tired of saying it. I
doubt that others here welcome my persistence either. And really, it's
too late for gtkmm 3.0 at this point. 

>   I stated reasons above.

I disagree that reasons have been stated properly.

I guess that answers to these questions might help me:
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gtk-devel-list/2011-March/msg00053.html
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gtk-devel-list/2011-March/msg00043.html

> I just looked through my entire application list; and have only 2 out
> of ~50 which I think would obviously be "fine" as multiprocess (namely
> file-roller, evince).  The rest are games (about 15), system tools
> (abrt, selinux, ~10), apps like gedit which i know are single process
> (~10), etc.

Why wouldn't gedit be fine as multiprocess? Why wouldn't most
document-based applications be fine as multiprocess? Why wouldn't
gnome-terminal be fine as multiprocess?

I'm repeating myself, and I don't plan to do it much more, but I still
see no reason to encourage applications to be multi-process where there
is no shared data that is not already handled by multi-process APIs such
as GSettings.

> Obviously - for any app that desires multiple windows (which is
> actually only ~15 of my apps) you can do both.

You can't apparently do both easily with GtkApplication. If both are
considered valid by GTK+ then GtkApplication should have some clear
warning that it pushes one model only and that it shouldn't be used if
that model is not wanted.

>   But again - the point
> is that single process is more efficient.

Efficient in terms of memory? Does it all hinge on that?

> Also - the single process approach makes it trivial to avoid data loss
> in the scenario where you open a file twice (i.e. right click on
> "my-notes.txt" to open in Abiword from nautilus, later forget you had
> it open and do it again), which is definitely a very compelling
> argument to me.  If it's not for you, well I don't know what to say.

I very much like the re-show-instead-of-reopening idea, and miss it
since I stopped using MacOS 7.3. However, I don't understand why this
should require a single process.


-- 
murrayc murrayc com
www.murrayc.com
www.openismus.com