Abdelrazak Younes wrote: >>> > No. I suppose it could be done, but it would be a huge amount of >>> > work. >>> >>> >>> That I was afraid of. It reminds me of the hen/egg problem. Not very >>> many people miss such a software, but once it is there...(like with >>> wikipedia) >>> >> No, it's not so much that. I could be wrong, but it seems to me like doing >> this would involve writing a whole new program, more or less. > > Not entirely. We could extend the lyxserver to do this kind of > synchronisation over the internet. There will always be one LyX instance > acting as a server and that could send func request to other LyX clients. > This is more or less what the Abiword people are doing with their new > version.
if Qt allowed to send windows of one instance on different displays, online colaboration would be dead easy. just 'new window' in current implementation would work. but last time we discussed this Andre just greped qt source with some line where it was clear this is not going to work with qt. >> And really making LyX VC-friendly seems to me as if it would be a superior >> solution. > > I agree. With good support for decentralized SCM (git, hg, ...) and proper > merging support within LyX this would be a far far superior solution. A > solution that would allow multiple ways of collaborations: fully > synchronized, periodically synchronized or synchronized on-demand. And you > would also decide when you push your change to the others, as opposed to > Abiword solution where the changes are immediately visible on all clients. just by accident i was playing with git support last week and came to the sad fact that i'm not able to call single command which wouldn't distinguish local/remote repository - you have always decide between commit vs pull. i was frustrated enough by this to escape from further work for now ;) pavel
