Re: [wmii] wmii Q's (python bindings & attaching windows)

--- "Anselm R. Garbe" <garbeam_AT_wmii.de> wrote:

> On Sun, Oct 30, 2005 at 03:08:24PM -0500, Jeremy
> Hankins wrote:
> > I started with wmii-2 (from the debian repository)
> until I realized how
> > much the configuration is to change with wmii-3,
> so I switched to the
> > darcs repository. However, the python stuff I
> wrote while playing with
> > wmii-2 (using the python2.3-libixp v2-1 package
> from debian) no longer
> > works -- it hangs on any attempt to read from the
> filesystem. Is there
> > a newer version of the python bindings, or is
> there something I might be
> > doing wrong?
>
> They aren't in sync, wether with old libixp nor with
> the
> upcoming new libixp which speaks 9P (thus the link
> Uriel pointed
> to is valid in the future when all wmi file servers
> speak 9P
> properly) - but you might not want to depdnd on
> python bindings,
> because you can then use mount -t 9p2000
> /tmp/.ixp-$USER/wmifs-$WMII_IDENT with Linux
> 2.6.14+.

This is a sort of plan9 as actually working on Linux
question: can someone point me to an idiots guide
about how all the components in utilising 9p within an
application fit togther, particularly for the purposes
of application configuration? All the stuff I've found
on the web is the "compressed conference stuff" that
doesn't clearly tell me how the kernel, 9pserver,
9pclient, libixp/libixp2, application code all fit
together. (This isn't a criticism; I just can't figure
out the low-level details.) Also, looking over the
wmii codebase it appears that you don't use the 9p
interface to set normal variables in your program but
rather you lookup the pseudo file in the 9p filesystem
each time the application code wants to use a
variable. Is this (a) right and (b) any reason not use
a style where the writing to the 9p filesystem sets a
standard (C++ say) variable?
 
> Well as Uriel pointed out, we're looking for a good
> plumbing
> implementation.

I know i'm going to regret asking this:-) Is there any
documentation specifying exactly what the format of
the plumbing mini-language is? Has anyone in the plan9
community done any analysis of whether using a
mini-language has been better or worse than using
writing actions in a more general purpose language
(with a trigger setup for RE matching messages being
part of a prewritten application)? The original
plumbing paper mentions re-evaluating in future
whether using a mini-language was the right idea or
whether hooking into a general purpose language would
be more useful.

cheers, dave

                
___________________________________________________________
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com
Received on Tue Nov 01 2005 - 12:55:18 UTC