Il giorno gio, 31/03/2011 alle 23.59 +0200, Giuseppe Penone ha scritto: > The reason to have more instances in my app (giuspen.com/cherrytree) > is that the user can have more tree notes and copy/paste from one to > the other.
Again, "instances" != "processes". Take gedit: as many toplevel windows as you want, each one with as many open notebooks as you want, you obviously can copy/paste from one to the other... and still, only one process running at any time. Then, if you're saying that your project is big, complex and now it's too hard to change, that's another point. But if that's the point, my impression is that _whatever_ communication mechanism you use, it will be very hard to coordinate open instances: for instance, even if you could use DBus, what of the many open processes would act as a server?! Pietro > > Cheers, > Giuseppe. > > > > On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 9:30 PM, Pietro Battiston > <[email protected]> wrote: > Il giorno gio, 31/03/2011 alle 20.44 +0200, Giuseppe Penone ha > scritto: > > ok, so you advice that every instance of the app would have > his own > > server (this is the only way any independent instance can > listen and > > control the window in shared memory) > > > > > > Well, frankly speaking I started from the assumption that at > every > moment there will be only _one_ instance of the app (with its > own > server), handling all the windows. Every time the user calls > it, a new > one starts, but dies within moments, and tells the original > one to open > the file (or open an empty window if no filename is given, > that depends > on the app). > Is there some particular reason why you must have more > instances running > at the same time? > If there is, then my idea is still extendable, but things > become indeed > more complex. > > Pietro > > > _______________________________________________ pygtk mailing list [email protected] http://www.daa.com.au/mailman/listinfo/pygtk Read the PyGTK FAQ: http://faq.pygtk.org/
