On 1.02.05, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>
> G> Dear developers, trying to use the lyxserver for a kind of
> G> scripting support, I came accross some troublespots.
>
> I did not have time to look seriously at all the report, but I believe
> that many of them can be trivially fixed.
Nice to hea
> "G" == G Milde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
G> Dear developers, trying to use the lyxserver for a kind of
G> scripting support, I came accross some troublespots.
Hello Günter,
I did not have time to look seriously at all the report, but I believe
that many of them can be trivially fixed. Bu
On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 04:47:52PM +0100, G. Milde wrote:
> Dear developers,
>
> trying to use the lyxserver for a kind of scripting support, I came accross
> some troublespots.
Could you put that on bugzilla, too? Please.
Andre'
Dear developers,
trying to use the lyxserver for a kind of scripting support, I came accross
some troublespots.
Sending a non existing LFUN will show Unknown Function in the status bar,
but the server returns "INFO:cname:fun" while it should IMHO return an
"ERROR:cname:fun:function doesnot exist"
Miyata Shigeru <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| emx has only BSD sockets support. Well, OS/2 named pipes can be
| accessed from multiple cliants if the server takes care of them...
| (In fact you can create many pipes of the same name.)
|
| I'm not ready to determine anything on this. Please cont
On 4 Jun 1999 17:17:27 +0900, Miyata Shigeru wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lars Gullik Bjnnes) wrote:
>
>> I am not sure if you know the difference between UNIX sockets and BSD
>> sockets. BSD sockets is used for networking and accessing computers
>> and otherplaces in the network, when you connect
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lars Gullik Bjnnes) wrote:
> I am not sure if you know the difference between UNIX sockets and BSD
> sockets. BSD sockets is used for networking and accessing computers
> and otherplaces in the network, when you connect to a BSD socket you
> connect to a ip number and a port. U
"Arnd Hanses" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| I'm not a programmer, the only experience comes from some simple
| porting I've done. But I think there are of course sockets and at least
| the OS/2 API has (named) pipes with extended functionality.
|
| The issue here being networked access to and mo
On 01 Jun 1999 20:23:42 +0200, Lars Gullik Bj°nnes wrote:
>
>We will use UNIX sockets, so security will not be a problem.
>(the normal file permissions will apply to the socket)
>| How'll do that for non-UNIX LyX? IIRC neither emx/gcc nor cygwin/gcc
>| know UNIX file permissions. But it would ind
> We should be very restrictive on what we call a bug at this point, the
> '\n' that Jean-Marc added is obvious, changing _any_ part of the
> protocol is not.
Well, I consider the change a bug-fix. The protocol is after all broken, and
should be fixed.
Also, it is a safe change. The two main ex
> bla bla safe change bla bla... how many times have we said that made
> the fix and then we discovers bugs because of it?
Many times.
Also, many times, good things have come. We make mistakes from time to time.
But that should not stop us from making changes, IMO. If we are too afraid to
cha
"Asger Alstrup Nielsen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Also, it is a safe change. The two main existing LyX-server applications are
| unaffected, and we have the perspective of getting many more LyX server
| applications with a Perl module.
bla bla safe change bla bla... how many times have we s
"Asger Alstrup Nielsen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[line length Asger...]
| I understand that 1.0.3 is important because 1.0.2 is bugged. So release 1.0.3
| now as it is, and we'll have more time to consider the lyx-server-stuff for
| 1.0.4 when we have the patch. 1.0.4 will require a long de
Alejandro Aguilar Sierra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On 1 Jun 1999, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
|
| > I must say that I am very reluctant to all/any changes to the
| > lyxserver code in LyX 1.0.x.
|
| Unless it is considered a bug fix, right?
We should be very restrictive on what we call a bu
On 1 Jun 1999, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> I must say that I am very reluctant to all/any changes to the
> lyxserver code in LyX 1.0.x.
Unless it is considered a bug fix, right?
> I'd much rather see a totally new and thought through lyxserver in
> 1.1.x.^^
Stefano Ghirlanda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > Too few people have used the server, so any fresh discussion about it is
| > useful. Be free to improve it, while that doesn't imply a radical change
| > of protocol for LyX 1.0.x.
| >
| > Alejandro
| >
|
| Ok, I'll give it a try!
| cheers,
|
> > Ok, I just volunteered to change the server code... but I do not know
> > what is best to do now. I suppose changing the protocol now would break
> > Barracuda... I can't find mentions to lyx in the barracuda 1.0.3 src
> > though... is it in a development version?
>
> It's in a patch apparen
On Tue, 1 Jun 1999, Stefano Ghirlanda wrote:
> Ok, I just volunteered to change the server code... but I do not know
> what is best to do now. I suppose changing the protocol now would break
> Barracuda... I can't find mentions to lyx in the barracuda 1.0.3 src
> though... is it in a development
> On Tue, 1 Jun 1999, Stefano Ghirlanda wrote:
>
> > thanks, I have looked into these. However, it *seems* to me, from a
> > cursory inspection in the code, that neither program every reads from
> > .lyxpipe.out, they only write requests to the input pipe... changing
> > the protocol will not aff
On Tue, 1 Jun 1999, Stefano Ghirlanda wrote:
> thanks, I have looked into these. However, it *seems* to me, from a
> cursory inspection in the code, that neither program every reads from
> .lyxpipe.out, they only write requests to the input pipe... changing
> the protocol will not affect these tw
Hi everyone,
> Don't put too much credit to the documentation :-)
> I know it might have bugs, because I rewrote most of it when I cleaned up the
> LyX server, and before I did that, the documentation for sure had lots of bugs.
> ;-)
>
> But, if gBib and the tclBib tool does not rely on the pi
> What I gathered upon first reading of the Lyx Server chapter in the
> customization docs was indeed that a message was always issued to notify
> clients. From that document:
>
>
> "The answer from LyX will arrive in the output pipe a
> "Lars" == Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Lars> Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: |
Lars> What do you think?
Lars> I think no. Let's work on making a really good lyxserver in 1.1.
Lars> instead of muddling on with the limited server in 1.0.
It just means rem
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| What do you think?
I think no. Let's work on making a really good lyxserver in 1.1.
instead of muddling on with the limited server in 1.0.
Lgb
Stephan Witt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Using a socket is a very elegant solution, but you have to
| create a robust and reliable security scheme too. LyX tends
| to modify files :) and there is a real security hole if the
| running LyX-Server is open to the whole world to assist in
| modifyin
Hi again,
> Asger> You could do a hack: Send a command to LyX that has no ill
> Asger> side-effects, but returns something (like where the cursor is),
> Asger> and if you get the result immediately, you know that the
> Asger> previous command succeeded. Actually, this trick could spare
> Asger>
Hi again,
> > This would be perfectly ok for me. BTW, since you speak of backward
> > compatibility, I assume that people have written other lyx clients (apart
> > from servermonitor.c in the lyx sources). I would like very much to see
> > the code of some of them so I can improve my code, e.g. w
> "Asger" == Asger Alstrup Nielsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Otherwise, I could simply conform to what the lyxserver does now,
>> i.e. not writing anything in the out pipe if a command that returns
>> no data succeeds. In this case, I do not fully understand how to
>> check wheter a comm
> This would be perfectly ok for me. BTW, since you speak of backward
> compatibility, I assume that people have written other lyx clients (apart
> from servermonitor.c in the lyx sources). I would like very much to see
> the code of some of them so I can improve my code, e.g. when it comes to
> e
Hi,
On Mon, 31 May 1999, Asger Alstrup Nielsen wrote:
> > Concerning the thought part below, I just reproduced it so that others
> > can comment on it. Personnally, I agree that some message should be
> > returned on success, but there may be some applications which rely on
> > the fact that not
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>
> "Asger Alstrup Nielsen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | In order to keep backwards compatibility, we can just introduce a certain
> | command that will enable the "error messages" on success.
>
> I think we should not keep backwards compatibility for the lyxserv
> I think we should not keep backwards compatibility for the lyxserver.
> We need to think out a decent protocol with commands _and_ responses.
> Also we should switch to using sockets instead of namedpipes.
Agreed, but only for 1.1.x. And therefore, for 1.0.x, I think we should just
do a hack t
> Concerning the thought part below, I just reproduced it so that others
> can comment on it. Personnally, I agree that some message should be
> returned on success, but there may be some applications which rely on
> the fact that nothing is returned.
>
> So, fellow developpers, any idea?
In ord
"Asger Alstrup Nielsen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| In order to keep backwards compatibility, we can just introduce a certain
| command that will enable the "error messages" on success.
I think we should not keep backwards compatibility for the lyxserver.
We need to think out a decent protocol
> "Stefano" == Stefano Ghirlanda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Stefano> Hi Jean-Marc, this is about the "idea" project. I have been
Stefano> working on a perl module, Lyx::Comm, handling communication
Stefano> with Lyx. For example:
Stefano> my $lyx = Lyx::Comm->new(client => "Idea");
Stefano>
35 matches
Mail list logo
