--- Begin Message ---
Subject: |
26.1; Emacs has no way to determine if the current instance has a running server |
Date: |
Sat, 16 Jun 2018 18:04:19 +0200 |
User-agent: |
mu4e 0.9.18; emacs 26.1 |
It's all in the subject line: Emacs has no way to determine if the
current instance has a running server. There's the `server-mode'
variable along with the `daemonp' and `server-running-p' functions, but
none of them are actually usable for the most elementary use case of
determining whether *this* instance has a server started.
- `server-mode' is nil if the server was started with `M-x server-start',
and t only if was started with `server-mode'
- `(daemonp)' returns non-nil if and only if emacs was started as a
daemon.
That is, the following sexp:
(progn
(require 'server)
(server-start)
(or server-mode (daemonp)))
will always evaluate to nil, except from emacsclient.
- (server-running-p) tries to determine if /some/ server is running,
somewhere, that is configured like the current server would be, but
it doesn't guarantee that the server runs from the current instance.
If you start two instances, `(server-running-p)' will eval to `t' *in
both* after the server was started in any one of them.
Thanks,
Thibault
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Subject: |
Re: bug#31859: 26.1; Emacs has no way to determine if the current instance has a running server |
Date: |
Sat, 23 Jun 2018 10:52:34 +0300 |
> Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2018 19:30:51 +0300
> From: Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden>
> Cc: address@hidden
>
> > From: Thibault Polge <address@hidden>
> > Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2018 18:27:03 +0200
> >
> > > Does it work to test whether server-process is bound and non-nil?
> >
> > It works, indeed. Would you accept a documentation PR on the variable
> > and the two functions, which are much more obvious candidates?
> > Something like:
> >
> > For a general way of determining if the current instance has a server
> > running, check the value of `server-process`.
> >
> > Or a PR adding a stupid helper function like:
>
> I'd prefer a documentation change, but let's see if someone has other
> opinions.
No further comments, so I installed a documentation change, and I'm
marking this bug done.
Thanks.
--- End Message ---