From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Richard Stallman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: The emacsclient socket vs. etc/emacs.bash Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2006 13:25:46 -0500 Message-ID: References: <87odqe4jg2.fsf@pacem.orebokech.com> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: dough.gmane.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1165688829 22972 80.91.229.10 (9 Dec 2006 18:27:09 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2006 18:27:09 +0000 (UTC) Cc: romain@orebokech.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Dec 09 19:27:07 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by dough.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1Gt6ue-000445-8F for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 09 Dec 2006 19:27:04 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gt6ud-00067N-P2 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 09 Dec 2006 13:27:03 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Gt6tR-0005Kx-H2 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 09 Dec 2006 13:25:49 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Gt6tQ-0005KJ-Rq for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 09 Dec 2006 13:25:48 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gt6tP-0005Jq-NR for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 09 Dec 2006 13:25:47 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.164] (helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1Gt6tP-0005E7-Ah for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 09 Dec 2006 13:25:47 -0500 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.52) id 1Gt6tO-0006Wa-G9; Sat, 09 Dec 2006 13:25:46 -0500 Original-To: Stefan Monnier In-reply-to: (message from Stefan Monnier on Fri, 08 Dec 2006 22:55:26 -0500) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:63519 Archived-At: But more concretely, what good would it serve to delete the socket when the server exits? If the remaining socket can confuse emacsclient, deleting it is a way to avoid the confusion. It is true that we can't do this when Emacs crashes. If that means emacsclient must be able to cope with the case of a remaining socket for a dead server, it is not necessary for turning off the server to delete the socket. But it is still cleaner to do so. - time 0: Emacs 1 starts its server. - time 1: Emacs 2 starts its server, overriding Emacs 1's server. Isn't that already a problem? Shouldn't we prevent this from happening, somehow? For instance, make the second server detect this and give an error message rather than start? - time 2: Emacs 1 exits: if it deletes the socket, it actually deletes Emacs 2's, not its own, so it'd be a bug Can Emacs 1 determine that its socket has been replaced?