Re: deploying bonobo apps on nfs share directory

[Michael Meeks <michael ximian com>]

Hi Gilbert,

On Fri, 2002-11-15 at 05:30, Gilbert Fang wrote:
> I absolutely  do not want to mount a nfs directory  to replace the 
> /tmp/<orbit-socket-tmp-dir>.

	Good.

> We may need several parallel installation because there may be several
> evolution versions. In fact, now our company has installed several
> netscape (two version of ns4.7x and ns6, ns7 , etc.). 

	Are you certain you know what you're doing. Are you certain that you
need this feature ? I'm fairly sure you don't. Evolution is fairly
unhappy with multiple copies of itself scribbling on the data on disk I
understand. 

> If user has started  gnome desktop, much  possibly he has activated a
> local oafd, thus we have no chance to add a nfs dirctory to
> oaf_activaton_path, and generally, we do not expect all user has a
> superuser priviledge to change /etc/oaf/oaf-config.xml and also do not

	Evolution will be the only thing using Oaf I think.

> By the way,  I wonder whether GNOME_PATH  will influnce all the
> gnome-apps or only bonobo-apps and oafd ?

	All gnome 1 apps use GNOME_PATH, Gnome 2 apps hopefully use
GNOME2_PATH.

> a new env virarable  OAFNAME="myEVO". Let me explain the use of this
> env variable, when the evolution calls the oaf_activate, it will not
> check "oaf-register.lock", but oaf-register-${OAFNAME}.lock and so
> does with other oaf-used , located in /tmp/<orbit-socket-tmp-dir>.

	Sounds like a vile and unsustainable hack - that will confuse
everything; but then again - most of this type of suggestion sound like
that.

	You have 2 choices:

	Dirty: run oaf-slay before running evolution - since in a mixed 
	       Gnome 2.0 / evo environment evo. is the only app to use
	       oafd this is no problem.

	Dirty: add a version number to all the OAFIIDs of evo server.

	The latter is 'Dirty' because it means that people can't activate a
known calendar server (such as evolution) to do calendar integration
(eg.) - not a major problem yet - but not something we want going
forward really I think.
	
> Is that a good idea ? if so,  I can help to write codes to implement
> this function ?

	Of course - having 2 evolutions running concurrently is likely to give
you nsaty memory / data corruption issues-  but that's your lookout.

	Regards,

		Michael.

-- 
 mmeeks gnu org  <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot