After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 129479 - at-spi-registryd needs to be per-display
at-spi-registryd needs to be per-display
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Product: at-spi
Classification: Platform
Component: registry
unspecified
Other All
: Normal major
: ---
Assigned To: bill.haneman
bill.haneman
AP1
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2003-12-16 17:46 UTC by bill.haneman
Modified: 2004-12-22 21:47 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---


Attachments
patch to registryd directory to fix this issue (1.06 KB, patch)
2003-12-16 17:49 UTC, bill.haneman
none Details | Review
different patch file (1.95 KB, patch)
2003-12-16 20:05 UTC, Brian Cameron
none Details | Review

Description bill.haneman 2003-12-16 17:46:43 UTC
For multi sessions and for login accessibility, 
and also for remote sessions, the at-spi-registry daemon should
return a per-DISPLAY instance.  That's also the case since at-spi-registryd
is making some assumptions about the gdk_display it's connected to.

The problem becomes evident if the same userid can log into the same server
twice, i.e. SunRay, gdm2 or any multi-session environment.

clients should be able to request an instance of the registry for a
specific DISPLAY, and multiple instances of the registry shouldn't be
reusing and snooping one another's environments.

(there's a similar issue for gnome-speech - probably servers need to be
per-AUDIODEV).
Comment 1 bill.haneman 2003-12-16 17:49:38 UTC
Created attachment 22487 [details] [review]
patch to registryd directory to fix this issue
Comment 2 bill.haneman 2003-12-16 17:52:06 UTC
glad this bug didn't get forgotten.  please dup if I missed a
previously-listed bug.
Comment 3 Brian Cameron 2003-12-16 20:05:09 UTC
I was given the following patch from Mark McLouglin, which I recently
tested and found worked.  This patch seems to have more changes than
the one that you applied, Bill.  Are you sure that the additional changes
are not necessary?
Comment 4 Brian Cameron 2003-12-16 20:05:35 UTC
Created attachment 22492 [details] [review]
different patch file
Comment 5 bill.haneman 2003-12-16 21:28:10 UTC
I tried Brian's patch before and it didn't seem to do what we needed.
 I'll look at the patch again.
Comment 6 bill.haneman 2003-12-16 21:30:05 UTC
this bug is against the registry, not the bridge.
you are correct that the bridge may need to be changed in accordance
with the second patch as well (but that may be another bug).

In any case the complete patch didn't seem to work for us before
(though it's nontoxic AFAICT).

let's leave this till the new year when we can look more closely at it.