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

List:       kfm-devel
Subject:    Re: konqueror - session management / startup (fwd)
From:       Simon Hausmann <tronical () gmx ! net>
Date:       1999-07-21 21:58:04
[Download RAW message or body]

On Wed, 21 Jul 1999, David Faure wrote:

> > > This has nothing to do with whether konqueror is in startkde or not.
> > > I also vote for it not to be there, as I said on kfm-devel, and I suggest a link
> > > to $HOME on the desktop, to fire up a konqy windows easily.
> > 
> > I agree!
> > 
> > > (But please don't make kfmclient fire up a new konqy each time one clicks on a
> > > kdesktop icon ! konqy does eat some memory, no need to have 10 konqys around for
> > > 10 windows).
> > 
> > OTOH if it crashes then 10 windows go down..
> 
> Crashes ? We'll have konqueror reach the same stability as kfm I hope, and even more !
> If it _doesn't_ crash, then it's a lot better to have only one application instead of ten !

I agree, and I would *really* love to see Konqueror way more stable.
(in fact it's currently pretty stable - not for users though, but as dayly 
ftp client it's ok for me :-)

However the use of CORBA plugins/views tends to make things unstable, even
if it is not our own code. And we surely can't try{}catch{} upon every
invokation. Well, but we can perhaps work more on this, maybe even the
mico guys can help a little bit here.

> > Perhaps we can find a way in the middle? ;-)
> > Every fifth window a new instance?
> > Hmm, no, that's no real solution I guess.
> Hmm ... :)
> 
> > So we keep the old way of one single instances for kfmclient, right?
> That's my opinion... Once again, just like Netscape, the user can start
> several instances if he finds that it's crashing too often. 

Ok, let's leave it as is for now.

Ciao,
 Simon

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