I didn't want to replicate any more, expecially
because the last replies (Jorgen Grahn,
Sybren Stuvel and Mike Meyer) have taken a
direction that doesn't interest me (GUI or not GUI?),
but I must thank gmi for his contribution.
gmi wrote:
> This may be of some use for you:
>- http://www.idyll.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Imagine you want to access a big database from a html server which
> only allows you to access such data in chunks pressing a "next"
> button on an ASP file. It will take several hours to click the button
> and then save the new data supplied by the server!
> That is a ty
Jorgen Grahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 29 Oct 2005 17:25:58 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...
>> Michel wrote:
> ...
>> > Linux can run perfectly happily without any form of windowing
>> > environment.
>>
>> I know, but nowadays almost any relevant application has a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] enlightened us with:
> I know, but nowadays almost any relevant application has a GUI.
I can't think of any relevant server application running on Linux that
has a GUI. My text processor, email client, Usenet client, IRC client,
address book and agenda are all without GUI too.
S
On 29 Oct 2005 17:25:58 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
> Michel wrote:
...
> > Linux can run perfectly happily without any form of windowing
> > environment.
>
> I know, but nowadays almost any relevant application has a GUI.
Side note: lots of people would disagree with t
I am further commenting on new replies.
Mike Meyer wrote:
> In general, application scripting facilities are one thing that Unix
> hasn't dealt with well.
> ...so each application is left up to it's own devices.
> Some of them now export APIs that can be hooked up to a variety of
> languages.
Now
Alex Martelli wrote:
> Don't neglect MacOSX -- it's quite secure, there are many open and free
> applications, AND it has a decent architecture for the kind of tasks you
> want to do (mostly intended for Apple's own Applescript language, but
> all the interfaces are open and easily available to Py
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
> For the other Alex observations (about Mac OsX and my examples of
> automation centered on web automation) I have a PC, and the fact that
> Python is very good at dealing with the web, doesn't help too much
> in this case...
All of your sensible use cases were
> some future Firefox version might perhaps integrate a Python engine
For those who never heard about Firefox 1.9, check the following urls.
It looks very promising:
1) http://wiki.mozilla.org/Roadmap_Scratchpad#Python_for_XUL
Python for XUL
Significant potential contributors in both the Python
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> My answer is the same as that given to Michael about low level
> programming.
> But I must thank anyway Alex for giving informations to such a level
> (I didn't know that under Linux there was such a level of
> sophistication with the possibility for an application to di
At first you must forgive my double posting (4 & 5 in terms of date and
4 & 7 in terms of answers). I must then thank the new comers:
Michael, Alex Martelli and Mike Meyer.
Michel wrote:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> But then I changed idea... Also if it is already one year that I try
>> to find
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alex Martelli) writes:
>...
>> But the problem is that in Linux you can't even send a keystroke to
>> a running GUI application!
> Actually, if the app is running under X11 you may try to fake out a
> keystroke event (with low level calls, but ctypes might let you use it
> f
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
> But the problem is that in Linux you can't even send a keystroke to
> a running GUI application!
Actually, if the app is running under X11 you may try to fake out a
keystroke event (with low level calls, but ctypes might let you use it
from Python). Of course,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> But then I changed idea... Also if it is already one year that I try
> to find a solution in Linux (mainly with Python or DCOP and KDE),
This doesn't express the question you have anywhere clearly enough. Linux
can run perfectly happily without any form of windowing e
Thank you for your replays (both for WMI and AutoIt beta-release)
but I would be satisfied if I had in Linux something similar to
the standard version of AutoIt!
Concerning WMI, a part the fact that it works only under Windows,
from the examples I have seen, IMHO it is much less powerful than
AutoI
Thank you for your replays (both for WMI and AutoIt beta-release)
but I would be satisfied if I had in Linux something similar to
the standard version of AutoIt!
Concerning WMI, a part the fact that it works only under Windows,
from the examples I have seen, IMHO it is much less powerful than
AutoI
Hi !
Not the good answer, but, for information :
AutoIt is very better in beta-release (many versions beta exist). AutoIt
beta can use COM call, and can use COM-server writed in Python with win32all
(PyWin).
And, also, AutoIt exist like Active-X (in reality a COM server), who can to
do used
Well on Windows I used some time ago for similar tasks the wmi module.
It is able to analyse running programs, press buttons and activate menu
items. As you didn't mention it, you might have a look at it. It works
pretty well.
http://tgolden.sc.sabren.com/python/wmi.html
For linux I don't know.
Hi all,
when I moved from Windows to Linux I choosed Python as my language of
reference and as GUI, Qt (not much investigated up to now).
Till now I didn't regret but one thing:
Python can't act as a macro language and so you are obliged to revert
to Windows to use programs like AutoIt, Macro
19 matches
Mail list logo
