From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Perry E. Metzger" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Can we go GTK-only? Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 12:34:38 -0400 Message-ID: <20161031123438.59c8d03b@jabberwock.cb.piermont.com> References: <24db2975-17ca-ad01-20c8-df12071fa89a@dancol.org> <4615E73A-19E2-4B79-9889-D3FA686DDDE6@raeburn.org> <11E61536-1345-4B81-999D-2E17F8B14C62@dancol.org> <6CC38BDB-C5AB-4A52-8A71-7E8F43F0B9B3@raeburn.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1477933246 17224 195.159.176.226 (31 Oct 2016 17:00:46 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 17:00:46 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Daniel Colascione , Stefan Monnier , YAMAMOTO Mitsuharu , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Ken Raeburn Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Oct 31 18:00:42 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1c1Fwo-00031L-OD for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 31 Oct 2016 18:00:34 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:37142 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c1Fwr-0005Wo-CI for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 31 Oct 2016 13:00:37 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:45064) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c1FXn-0006jj-Px for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 31 Oct 2016 12:34:44 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c1FXj-0005WP-QC for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 31 Oct 2016 12:34:43 -0400 Original-Received: from hacklheber.piermont.com ([166.84.7.14]:43699) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c1FXj-0005WK-Lw for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 31 Oct 2016 12:34:39 -0400 Original-Received: from snark.cb.piermont.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hacklheber.piermont.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3E7D23E; Mon, 31 Oct 2016 12:34:38 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from jabberwock.cb.piermont.com (jabberwock.cb.piermont.com [10.160.2.107]) by snark.cb.piermont.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BF8C2DE021; Mon, 31 Oct 2016 12:34:38 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <6CC38BDB-C5AB-4A52-8A71-7E8F43F0B9B3@raeburn.org> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 166.84.7.14 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:209029 Archived-At: On Mon, 31 Oct 2016 04:24:31 -0400 Ken Raeburn wrote: > > So we have to separate processes for > > GUI front-end and Lisp back-end to support such situations, > > anyway. =20 >=20 > It might not be a bad way to go, if we can keep the interprocess > communication efficient enough, but I don=E2=80=99t think it=E2=80=99ll be > required. Even if we do that, some part of the main Emacs process > needs to communicate with these multiple GUI processes, so do we > wind up with multiple UI threads in the main process anyway? Or keep everything event driven. Or both. BTW, if this gets done, documenting the protocol between the front and back ends would be really nice for future porters. One could also imagine adding quite different front ends, say one based on Electron, which would allow very nice web integration. A good place to prototype this would be a tty front end, since the tty has a comparatively simple job. Perry --=20 Perry E. Metzger perry@piermont.com