On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 22:27:24 -0400 Michael Jennings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> babbled:
> On Monday, 27 August 2007, at 07:45:08 (+0900), > Carsten Haitzler wrote: > > > yes - and the bad bit is - this conflicts with code for the config > > gui. the fact is that almost every app on the planet provides a GUI > > (built in) to configure itself - preferences dialogs for firefox, > > settings dialogs for gimp. almost NONE provide "remote > > control". most of the time people don't care - and don't need it. > > This is, of course, not true. Most systems, including firefox > (prefs.js) and GIMP (gimprc, et al.), use text-based configurations > which do not require specialized "remote control" tools beyond a > simple text editor. But even they provide mechanisms for controlling > program behavior from afar, from JavaScript and Script-Fu to special > command line parameters. > > An automated way of manipulating program configuration is both wanted > and needed. > > The current implementation of E IPC is pretty ugly, yes. That doesn't > mean IPC is bad. It means the IPC code was not designed properly. then by removing it i will put impetus into someone replacing it - shorne started with a dbus implementation and the intent to put all of it into modules - so it can be extended by anyone who thinks they need 3rd party control. -- ------------- Codito, ergo sum - "I code, therefore I am" -------------- The Rasterman (Carsten Haitzler) [EMAIL PROTECTED] 裸好多 Tokyo, Japan (東京 日本) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ enlightenment-users mailing list enlightenment-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-users
