On Tue, Aug 14, 2007 at 09:15:21AM -0400, Dan Espen wrote: > "seventh guardian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I must confess I'm not very fond of listen only modules. I believe it > > is more of a hack than a long term solution to the "shell script > > module" problem. And I would really like it removed, and for that the > > sooner the better. > > > > So I was messing around to see if it was really needed, and it's not. The > > pro > > of: > > > > run "Module FvwmCommandS" > > > > create a simple bash script like this: > > > > #!/bin/bash > > echo 'Module FvwmBanner' > /var/tmp/FvwmCommand-${HOSTNAME}${DISPLAY}C > > > > Now a nice FvwmBanner will appear. You can build complicated scripts > > in any language that allows you to write to a file, zsh included, no > > overhead whatsoever. > > > > And if you want to listen to fvwm it's a matter of listening to the > > 'M' counterpart: /var/tmp/FvwmCommand-${HOSTNAME}${DISPLAY}M > > > > The only issue I can see here is the possible variation of the fifo > > names, which is not that severe. > > > > Any reasons to keep the ListenOnly module mechanism? > > Compatibility?
I just coded it a while ago for my own purposes, so that's no problem. > Running FvwmCommandS is a security exposure. > Some users might be reluctant to use it. I don't use FvwmCommand because it's too slow. I wanted a solution for displaying a clock and the process using the most cpu with as little overhead as possible. I do not want to start an executable every n seconds because it has a negative influence on my system, (namely the graphics performance of Kobo-Deluxe). I didn't do it for the fun of it but to solve a real problem. Ciao Dominik ^_^ ^_^ -- Dominik Vogt, dominik.vogt (at) gmx.de
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature