[Geany] Re: The way we handle the FIFO.

Alexandre Moreira alexandream at xxxxx
Mon Jul 24 18:27:54 UTC 2006


And again, I really must remind me that Gmail can't handle this list
correctly. The message is just below.

2006/7/24, Alexandre Moreira <alexandream at gmail.com>:
>
>
>
> 2006/7/24, Nexu <nexu.jin at gmail.com>:
>
> > On Mon, 2006-07-24 at 13:49 -0300, Alexandre Moreira wrote:
> >
> > >         Right now, whenever the user opens a new empty instance of
> > >         geany, geany checks out to see if the FIFO exists, and if it
> > >         does, it asks the user what to do, if it should skip launching
> >
> > >         or if it should delete the pipe and open.
> > >
> > >         But I think asking the user is rather annoying, and would like
> > >         to give Geany the ability to try to connect to the pipe, send
> > >         a ping message wait for, say, 3 or 5 seconds (enough time for
> > >         a process to reply a pipe ping message) and if it doesnt
> > >         reply, deletes the pipe and runs itsel. If it does reply, we
> > >         skip launching and raise the old instance.
> > >
> > >  so the question is not about the achievability of the feature in
> > > Win32 anymore, but on the actual merits of the feature.
> >
> > As an user, i think these 2 choices are choices between 2 evil.
> >
> > >From my point of view the pro and cons of asking the user.
> > Pro:
> >         - User only have to click and Geany starts
> > Cons:
> >         - User _must_ click something before Geany starts
> >         - User might be confused why its necessary to answer such
> >         question and what it means.
> >
> > >From my points of view the pro and cons of the delay.
> > Pro:
> >         - No more dialog at start-up after a crash
> > Cons:
> >         - User might be confused why Geany is not responsive at start-up
> >
> >         (after a crash)
> >
> > Now consider the main user target group (at-least that is what i assume,
> > correct me if i am wrong on this) are mostly programmers or at least
> > more experienced computer users. I think the cons of the dialog is not
> > necessary 'confusing' and better than a delay where Geany is 'idle'.
> >
> > As a suggestion, perhaps you could merge these 2 ideas. Instead of a
> > dialog which needs input. Change it into a dialog with a message Geany
> > is trying to connect to the existing FIFO with a "cancel" button which
> > deletes the current FIFO and starts up, or wait where after X seconds
> > (display count down perhaps to inform the user how long left) of time
> > out and not able to reconnect to existing FIFO and delete it and make a
> > new one.
>
>
> The Idea looks nice, but I don't think we can implement it without making
> a major change in our initialization code. I am not very familiar with
> neither GTK+ or Windows programming (I usually only develop console
> applications) but I think we'll need a thread to handle the waiting on the
> pipe and another to handle the window presentation, synchronize them both
> and stuff. Not really a hard thing to do, but would make a bigger codebase
> for initialization, something I don't think everyone will agree on.
>
> Perhaps we should just leave it the way it is now.
>
> Regards,
> Alexandre Moreira.
>
> Regards,
> >
> > Nex
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Geany mailing list
> > Geany at uvena.de
> > http://uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany
> >
>
>
Regards,
Alexandre Moreira.

PS: Nexu, sorry for the duplicate message.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.geany.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20060724/f6013052/attachment.html>


More information about the Users mailing list