On Thursday 26 September 2002 3:35 pm, Juergen Vigna wrote: > Angus Leeming wrote: > > ;-) The problem is that whilst LyX responds to a "Hello" > > from a client, sending out a "Hello" in reply, clients are > > not required to respond in similar fashion. > > > > It would of course be straightforward to enforce this. > > Something like > > I don't think you understood what Allan wants (and I think > it's a good idea). We make a "client" request to an existing > pipe and _if_ we get an answer then we _know_ that another lyx > process is using it. If we don't get an answer we can assume > that the pipes are there because of a crash (or abort) of an > earlier lyx instance and then we can proceed to "rm" the pipes > and recreate them for us to use. > > Otherwise we can give a message that another process is using > the pipes and this instance of LyX will not be able to > comunicate over that pipes. > > Capito #:O)
Indeed I do, and a very clever idea it is too! Thanks for putting me straight. Incidentally, I see you are using [EMAIL PROTECTED] Note that you are listed in CREDITS as [EMAIL PROTECTED] I guess that this is now out of date? Angus
