This idea had been considered before but perhaps rejected too early. I'm
curious to hear what Nicholas thinks about it when he gets back. Would it be
too painful to maintain two clients?
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 1:00 PM, Kekoa Proudfoot
<kekoa.proudf...@gmail.com>wrote:
> I didn't mean iTerm2 should talk to tmux's socket directly, more that
> there is already a protocol used over the socket. Why not have iTerm2
> reuse it?
>
> -Kekoa
>
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 12:01 PM, George Nachman <gnach...@llamas.org>
> wrote:
> >> In a sense tmux is already client/server via a socket in /tmp but I
> >> don't know if the protocol was done in a way that would allow new
> >> clients to be written easily.
> >
> > The advantage of making the tmux client talk to iTerm2 over having iTerm2
> > communicate directly with tmux's socket is that you can ssh to a remote
> > host, run the tmux client, and have iTerm2 talk to it.
> > After iTerm2 exits beta this summer, I plan to tackle the tmux side of
> this
> > problem.
> >
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enable your software for Intel(R) Active Management Technology to meet the
growing manageability and security demands of your customers. Businesses
are taking advantage of Intel(R) vPro (TM) technology - will your software
be a part of the solution? Download the Intel(R) Manageability Checker
today! http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devmar
_______________________________________________
tmux-users mailing list
tmux-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tmux-users
