On Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 01:18:45PM +0200, Anselm R. Garbe wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 12:25:38PM +0200, Julian Romero wrote:
> > Yeah. Never pretended to go main. But without a run-time communication
> > mechanism dwm is quite static (for my needs, I mean) There should be a
> > way to talk with it, simple and small, without reaching wmii
> > complexity. Stdin? Piped files? Telnet? ...?
> >
> > Don't take it very seriously, but an array of pipes will do the trick
> > typedef struct {
> > const char *file;
> > void (*func)(Arg *arg);
> > } Pipe;
> >
> > Pipe pipeline[] = {
> > { "-", modstatus},
> > }
> >
> > Main dwm may define and use only the status pipe while some other user can
> > have
> > Pipe pipeline[] = {
> > { "-", modstatus},
> > {"~/.dwm/tagpipe, modtags},
> > {"~/.dwm/rulepipe, modrules},
> > }
> >
> > Main dwm should provide the basic loop to open every pipe and call the
> > associated function when there is something to read.
>
> NO, that will end a bunch of complexity. I don't see the need for
> main distribution. dwm is customized by editing its source code.
Oh dear, I wanted to say, 'that will add a...' and 'I don't see
the need for the official dwm tarball to include such handling'.
Regards,
-- Anselm R. Garbe ><>< www.ebrag.de ><>< GPG key: 0D73F361Received on Mon Aug 21 2006 - 13:26:31 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sun Jul 13 2008 - 14:30:16 UTC