Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Thu, Jul 13, 2006 at 09:52:27PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| > | That feels like a good decision from a security POV. Why'd anyone want to
enable
| > | a scripting language to be able to execute lyx::support::unlink f.ex.?
| > |
| > | What do I miss?
| >
| > >From my POV nothing.
|
| Maybe most scripting languages have there own unlink?
|
| Apart from that I never said we should not use the LFUN interface.
| However, going through the lyxserver is a completely unecesary
| complication.
So what communication channel do you see as suitable?
(Or do you want to run python/perl/ruby/C/whatever as part of the lyx
processs?)
--
Lgb
