On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 07:51:21PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> Andre Poenitz wrote:
> >On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 12:45:50PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> >>The best option is to remove the need for (non const) access to this
> >>BufferList. I think Buffer creation/deletion should be done by the
> >>frontend not the kernel. The kernel could ask for a new buffer via a
> >>signal for example. I have just described of course my ideal world but
> >>there's some way to go before that...
> >
> >Not sure I agree here. A buffer is _the_ kernel structure. A list of
> >them can hardly be a GUI thinmg then...
>
> Hum, in my mind the frontend is not limited to the GUI; the GUI is part
> of it. The frontend handles the process initialisation/running/exiting.
> Creating a new buffer is something that the frontend asks so it is
> natural that it also keep a list of them. This is a matter of taste perhaps.
As everything.
However, in the particular case of LyX is see the line drawn between
'what would be sensible in a remote-controlled lyxserver process' and
'anything related to keystrokes and mouseclicks'.
In this ('my') scheme the bufferlist would go to the kernel as having
multiples buffers seems to make sense also for a lyxserver pov.
Andre'
