Am 13.11.2010 um 14:59 schrieb Enrico Forestieri: > On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 01:57:54PM +0100, Stephan Witt wrote: > >> Am 13.11.2010 um 13:46 schrieb Jean-Marc Lasgouttes: >> >>> Le 13 nov. 10 à 12:29, Enrico Forestieri a écrit : >>>> I don't know how that single instance enforcement is attained, but if >>>> that is true, you should not be able to launch a new instance of lyx >>>> by using the --no-remote switch. So, launch lyx a first time, then try >>>> to get a new instance using "lyx --no-remote". Do you now have two >>>> different instances or not? >>> >>> Actually, when LyX is launched via its icon or by double clicking a >>> document, the lyx binary is invoked with a special (-ss I think) argument >>> pointing >>> to the existing instance. The new file to load appears as a window system >>> message. >>> >>> So, when launching LyX from the command line, your patch should do >>> the right thing (tm). >> >> I tested it on Mac and it works as it should. With --no-remote a new >> instance is >> started. Otherwise the running LyX opens a new window. I'd say it's ok. >> >> Only rare corner cases - e. g. a stopped LyX instance - may be a problem now. > > Maybe less than it would appear. If LyX crashed leaving behind a stale pipe, > this is detected and no running instance is assumed to be present. Of course, > if LyX did not crash but is somehow stalled, then we would have the > problem that a document will never be opened, unless using the --no-remote > switch or killing the stalled instance. This is the price to pay for this > feature, I am sorry.
Yes, I didn't want to search for problems. It was meant as a praise. Stephan
