Subject: FvwmCommand

From: Bob Woodside <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 15:51:15 -0500 (EST)

I think there was some discussion about the FvwmCommand version
1.4 - 1.5 issue a while back, but I missed the outcome. 

	Is there a particular reason that the version we have in the
CVS tree is 1.4? Has anyone looked into including Toshi Isogai's 1.5
version? I'm not sure what his changes were (bug fixes, if I recall),
but I had been using that version for some time with 2.0.46.

	Is Toshi the official maintainer of FvwmCommand, or is the
distribution from his Web site considered unsanctioned?

- Bob

--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.hpc.uh.edu/fvwm/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm-workers" in the
body of a message to [email-masked].
To report problems, send mail to [email-masked].

---

From: Brad Giaccio <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 22:17:25 -0500 (EST)

I don't know who the maintainer is but I have been using 1.5 in the
current tree and it works fine the only thing I had to change was adding
config.h and remoing the sun_header stuff.  
It is much cleaner code and more user friendly, before it put pipes in
/tmp where they could get stomped on now it puts them wherever you say to
or in $HOME by default.

Brad

-- 
--- There are two kinds of knowledge, you either know the answer or
			you know where to find it
		      -Kane, Johnson, and anonymous

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 12:35:50 +0100

> /tmp where they could get stomped on now it puts them wherever you say to

Then, why don't we replace it with the new version?

Bye

Dominik
-- 
Dominik Vogt, Hewlett-Packard GmbH, Dept. BVS
Herrenberger Str.130, 71034 Boeblingen, Germany
phone: 07031/14-4596, fax: 07031/14-3883, [email-masked]
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.hpc.uh.edu/fvwm/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm-workers" in the
body of a message to [email-masked].
To report problems, send mail to [email-masked].

---

From: Bob Woodside <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 07:08:55 -0500 (EST)

[email-masked] wrote:
> > It [1.5] is much cleaner code and more user friendly...

	I'll do it over the weekend, then.

- Bob

---

From: Steve Robbins <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 09:37:06 -0500 (EST)

> Then, why don't we replace it with the new version?

Alternatively, why don't we REMOVE it, and point to the maintainer's
homepage?  Also, we can put a copy of the module on the ftp site.

There's no particular reason the fvwm distribution should contain *every*
module in existence for fvwm.  A few core modules should be included, and
a list of all the others can be documented, linked to, etc.

---

From: Brad Giaccio <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 10:05:37 -0500 (EST)

> a list of all the others can be documented, linked to, etc. 

The problem is there is nothing in the core like it.  This gives you the
ability to talk to fvwm from a script.  Any script, not just perl.  Which
makes life a whole lot easier, for automating tasks.

Granted we get probably want to loose some of the redundant modules but we
don't want to get rid of behaviors.  
So what we have is 
FvwmCommand which is a superset of FvwmPipe
and fvwmperl (X11fvwmperl) and fvwmpython which I haven't used but
probably give us the same functionality but lock you into one scripting
language.

Brad

---

From: Tim Phipps <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 14:47:08 +0000

> homepage?  Also, we can put a copy of the module on the ftp site.
I'd like to keep it.  I find it useful and having to get is separately
would be a
pain.
Cheers,
Tim.

---

From: Michael M Han <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 11:02:22 -0800

I don't know about fvwmpython, but X11::Fvwm for perl is, AFAIK, a bit
different from FvwmCommand/FvwmPipe... It's advertised to expose the
fvwm modules interface in perl, so it's not that it allows you to emit
Fvwm builtins to be PipeRead'd. It actually doesn't even live in the
modules directory, being entirely resident in your perl lib tree. Ok,
it installs some sample modules written with X11::Fvwm into the
modules tree, but that's it.

Previously...
>probably give us the same functionality but lock you into one scripting
_________
mike ([email-masked])
Indian burns are not our cultural heritage
 - The collected wisdom of Bart Simpson
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.hpc.uh.edu/fvwm/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm-workers" in the
body of a message to [email-masked].
To report problems, send mail to [email-masked].

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 11:38:47 +0100

> makes life a whole lot easier, for automating tasks.

Yes, I'm opposed to removing FvwmCommand too. We'll loose some nice
functionality (great for testing and debugging and the only way to do
some very advanced configuration without shell scripts).

Bye

Dominik