On Sun, Jul 16, 2006 at 11:34:34AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: > | Apart from that I never said we should not use the LFUN interface. > | However, going through the lyxserver is a completely unecesary > | complication. > > So what communication channel do you see as suitable? > (Or do you want to run python/perl/ruby/C/whatever as part of the lyx > processs?)
For external use a python extension seems to be in orderi. This could be just a thin wrapper around the lfun interface. [This is closer to 'embedding LyX in Python'.] This _could_ also use a LyX instance that's connected over a server pipe, but would be much simpler to put everything of LyX - main() in a lib and link to this lib. For internal use, this python + extension could be embedded in LyX. Even if this sounds a bit more complicated conceptionally, it is actually simpler to implement because the 'lyx kernel lib' is not needed. It'll boild down to (rough estimation) 200 lines of glue code + linking with libpython. Without extra work his means that python runs indeed in the same process as LyX. However, I don't see a big problem there. We already link to half a dozen external libs and python seems rather stable to me. More stable than LyX itself, actually. And there might be other benefits as reduced starup times for the conversion scripts or such. Andre'
