[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-core-devel
Subject:    Re: DCOP without X server
From:       David Faure <david () mandrakesoft ! com>
Date:       2001-11-30 14:49:49
[Download RAW message or body]

On Friday 30 November 2001 15:44, Matthias Ettrich wrote:
> On Friday 30 November 2001 15:26, Stephan Kulow wrote:
> > On Friday, 30. November 2001 15:16, David Faure wrote:
> [snip]
> > > > >
> > > > > Where do you guys always get the idea from that dcop has anything to
> > > > > do with Xlib or a XServer?
> > > >
> > > > Hmm, is this a possible reason for the confusion?
> > > >
> > > > coolo@sein#~>DISPLAY= dcopserver
> > > > Aborting. $DISPLAY is not set.
> 
> Outch. That truely explains it %-}
> 
> > >
> > > Yes, and that's because of the case where the user runs multiple X
> > > sessions from the same account, on the same host - IIRC we decided it
> > > should have different dcop servers in that case.
> > > Maybe the fix, to make dcop available without X too, is as simple as
> > > "if no DISPLAY is set, then use ~/.DCOPserver_NODISPLAY instead of
> > > ~/.DCOPserver_$DISPLAY" ?
> >
> > Yes, DCOP without dedicated DISPLAY is a session on it's own. E.g. a daemon
> > without X connection can't expect to give a process on the user's desktop a
> > command (at least I hope so). But e.g. a kioslave should be useable in that
> > session (even though for this case it may be easier to develop from process
> > forked slaves :)
> 
> Agree. Who's going to do it?

Me then.
Almost done.
Just not sure what to do in dcopserver_shutdown, since it already has
a fallback if DISPLAY isn't set, to ":0". Waldo, can you have a look ?
Only a problem if someone uses dcopserver_shutdown without a display,
though.

-- 
David FAURE, david@mandrakesoft.com, faure@kde.org
http://perso.mandrakesoft.com/~david/ , http://www.konqueror.org/
KDE 3.0: Konquering the Desktops

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]