* Zajcev Evgeny <lg@xxxxxxxx> writes:
> I have an idea, dont know maybe someone already proposed it but i
> was not listening .. anyway. Every xwem user know problem when he
> is running bunch of X application under xwem and something happens
> to xwem or (S)XEmacs and (S)XEmacs crashes or xwem hangs or
> anything else harmful happens - you lost all your X application
> that was launched by xwem launcher. We have workaround this
> problem - xwem-agent with conjunction of nohup(1), however
> nohup(1) not always do the job exactly as expected ..
Works great here. What sorts of problems with nohup?
> So i have an idea, what if (S)XEmacs wont launch any X application at
> all? What if (S)XEmacs will notify xwem-agent that there is query
> pending to execute some command in xwem launcher, and xwem-agent
> launches that X application for the (S)XEmacs, so those X application
> does not HUPs when (S)XEmacs exits, they only HUPs when xwem-agent
> exits, but if xwem-agent exits the whole X exits as well, because
> normally xwem-agent holds X. This aproach will totaly solve nohup(1)
> and intersession (within xwem-agent) problems ..
I don't like it. It takes us away from the very essence of XWEM... A
fully functional, modern, and complete Window Manager written entirely
in elisp.
Yes, I know that the agent isn't elisp. But the agent doesn't
actually do anything other than hold the X server. It doesn't do any
window manager related tasks. And the agent is NOT essential to
running XWEM. You don't need the agent to use XWEM.
Evgeny, please don't do this. I love XWEM for many reasons, but
foremost is because it is elisp. If you start palming things out to C
code, then we may as well be running Sawfish.
Lets not forget what XWEM is all about.
--
|---<Steve Youngs>---------------<GnuPG KeyID: A94B3003>---|
| In space, |
| No one can hear you rip a stinky |
|---------------------------------------<steve@xxxxxxxx>---|
pgpyoe7EGbx8M.pgp
Description: PGP signature
|