This is the mail archive of the cygwin-xfree@cygwin.com mailing list for the Cygwin XFree86 project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: xterm is a console program?


This is also wrong for a lot of X11 applications. Just imagine the debug
nighmare when the user never sees the "Can't connect to display" message
and crys "xterm bombs!!!!! :( Plz Help"


This, actually, is a *very* good point!  Most X apps will communicate with
the console, if only to show errors or help messages (run your favorite X
app with --help and see if it doesn't print to the console).  So, to
answer the question in the subject, *yes, an xterm IS a console app*.


Right, just like how you can't get info from XWin.exe -help right now because we *had* to make it a Windows app instead of a console app (or even a console app with auto-detach) because there isn't currently a good solution to this problem.


The functionality that Early proposes might be useful, but it certainly is
not something to have *by default*.  A Cygwin-specific command-line switch
(if it's implementable -- I don't know) is a good compromise, and,
although that *will* require changing each individual application, it
sounds much better than the "no console ever" policy.


The policy isn't "no console ever". The policy is "detach from consoles created specifically for this process, remain attached to consoles that this process is launched from". Thus, if you launch from bash you get console output. If you launch from Start->Run or by double-clicking the app you don't get a new console spawned specifically for that app.


If such functionality is released, the best place for it, IMO, is what CGF
suggested, i.e., a separate hideconsole.o which apps link against; it can
even come in its own package, independent of either cygwin or xfree*.

Of course. We are having a discussion here and the purpose is to wander around until we find a good idea. There are not two camps here (for and against) like it may seem. We are all trying to find out if there is an acceptable solution and Chris's suggestion sounds like a better solution than the earlier proposal, so it is the current winner. Of course, our emails haven't reflected this yet because I have to sleep at night so I haven't had a chance to change the direction of the discussion until now.


Harold


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]