On 8/14/07, seventh guardian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 8/14/07, Dominik Vogt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> You missed my point, I'm not using FvwmCommand, but only FvwmCommandS.
> FvwmCommandS creates two fifos that can be used to send and receive
> text to/from fvwm. So instead of calling FvwmCommand, you can directly
> write commands to the command fifo. So really NO overhead at all.
>
> As for the security issues, they can easily be circumvented by putting
> the fifo in the user home dir.
>
By the way, there's a todo-3.0 entry regarding creating a fvwm built
in socket mechanism for the same purpose. That mechanism would
eventually get coded replacing all the FvwmCommand, FvwmCommandS,
FvwmConsole and FvwmConsoleC.
So maybe it could be good to remove the listen only modules right now
before it turns into a compatibility issue, and use the FvwmCommandS
fifos for now. Later it would be easier to remove a module than a
command.
Cheers,
Renato
