On Sat, 7 Jan 2006 02:50:03 +1000 David Seikel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Sat, 7 Jan 2006 00:35:42 +0900 Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i would argue that ECORE_EVENT_EXE is fine as its a CORE ecore event
(not a sub ecore system like ecore_con)... ?
I'm
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 12:04:19 +1000 David Seikel [EMAIL PROTECTED] babbled:
On Sat, 7 Jan 2006 02:50:03 +1000 David Seikel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Sat, 7 Jan 2006 00:35:42 +0900 Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i would argue that ECORE_EVENT_EXE is fine
On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 21:31:03 -0500 dan sinclair [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
David Seikel wrote:
On Sat, 7 Jan 2006 02:50:03 +1000 David Seikel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I'll make these changes, but keep ECORE_EVENT_EXE_EXIT around for
historical reasons (so no one can blame me for beaking
On Thu, 5 Jan 2006 08:05:43 +1000 David Seikel [EMAIL PROTECTED] babbled:
While I was bringing ecore_exe fork'n'pipe into consistency with
ecore_con and ecore_ipc, I noticed a problem with the way the exe event
types are allocated and named. To make them more consistent,
ECORE_EVENT_EXE_EXIT
On Sat, 7 Jan 2006 00:35:42 +0900 Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i would argue that ECORE_EVENT_EXE is fine as its a CORE ecore event
(not a sub ecore system like ecore_con)... ?
I'm thinking consistency in naming things IPC related. I think that
merging fork'n'pipe
While I was bringing ecore_exe fork'n'pipe into consistency with
ecore_con and ecore_ipc, I noticed a problem with the way the exe event
types are allocated and named. To make them more consistent,
ECORE_EVENT_EXE_EXIT and ECORE_EVENT_EXE_DATA should be renamed to
ECORE_EXE_EVENT_DEL and
