I would like to open a new MonoDevelop instance to work on a different project on the Mac, and the OS is currently preventing me from opening a new instance.
+18
A:
On Mac, if you have an app open and you try to launch it again, the Mac just switches to the open app. You can force it to open a new instance by passing the option "-n" to the launcher. In a terminal, run
open -n /Applications/MonoDevelop.app
Note also that MonoDevelop is capable of opening multiple solutions. To do this, simply uncheck the "close current dialog" checkbox in the "Open" dialog, or hold down the control key when clicking on one of the recently opened projects in the Welcome Page.
mhutch
2009-10-13 21:19:00
Hi -- I'm running MonoDevelop 2.4 on Mac OS, and I'm not seeing that checkbox, or that control-key behavior. Has this changed recently?
David Moles
2010-10-05 19:01:28
Still works for me. Note that the checkbox and the hint in the Welcome Page only appear if you have a solution already open, and the checkbox only appears when you actually select a solution or project in the dialog.
mhutch
2010-10-14 23:08:00
+9
A:
For convenience, I just create three copies of MonoDevelop.
Highlight MonoDevelop in Finder, copy, paste, rename the new copy to "MonoDevelop-2", and repeat to your satisfaction.
It also helps me keep track of what's going on in different instances. I typically keep my most important project open in "MonoDevelop", use "MonoDevelop-2" for testing ideas related to my main project, and "MonoDevelop-3" for random scratch.
When you alt-tab (open-Apple-tab (command-tab (whvr))), the name of the executable shows up beneath its icon in the application list, so, as long as I stick to my convention, I always know(ish) the contents of the instance I'm alt-tabbing to regardless of how many other app windows I have open. I don't have to cycle through them to figure it out.
It's not perfect - when I have "MonoDevelop" running, if I try to fire up one of the others, the first attempt to start will fail. You just try to fire it up again - it works the second time. This has only been happening since the most recent build, though, and I think it might have something to do with automatic updates or add-in management. Haven't looked into it too much. Since there are no problems once up and running, I don't worry about it :)
The result is that, with the start-it-twice method, for any additional instance of MonoDevelop you'd like to start, you end up having to quadruple-click instead of double-click. Adds about fifteen seconds to the process, and since I have MonoDevelop (along with "MonoDevelop-1" and "MonoDevelop-2") running all the time, it adds up to, maybe, an extra thirty seconds of work each week. A fair trade for the convenience, methinks.
A bit hacky, but it's worked well for me.
And all the cool kids are doing it.
Rory Blyth
2009-10-15 01:13:02
Great idea! Does it still work if you create a symlink instead of copying?
mhutch
2009-10-15 17:48:37
The startup failures are a known bug in the addin registry rescan. When MD detects that its dlls have changed or "moved", it rebuilds the addin registry, and sometimes it crashes when after this. There's an environment variable you can set to make it use a different registry location, which you could use to separate your three instances' registries, though I'm not sure how you'd set per-app env vars on mac. Might have to patch it into the MonoDevelop.app/Contents/macOS/MonoDevelop script.
mhutch
2009-10-15 17:52:19
I haven't tried anything other than just copying, though your idea makes way more sense - wouldn't have to duplicate effort when grabbing the latest MonoDevelop builds.When I do things like this (creating dirty solutions for myself), I tend to take the laziest route to satisfy my nerd-lusty ways.But now I want to know.Course, I could've done it in far less time than it took me to write this comment... This is defeating the purpose of my laziness. I must go.I must go and try...
Rory Blyth
2009-10-16 21:49:34
Dunno why I waited so long to reply to this - I tried making a symlink as soon as I wrote the above comment - didn't work :| OS X wasn't fooled. So I'm still doing my copying thing. But, hey - it works. I've thought of a few ways of automating it and conveying more meaningful information than just -2, -3, etc. in the filename for command-tabbing through apps, but I haven't hit the Need > Laziness threshold yet that prompts me to build my tools :)
Rory Blyth
2009-10-31 00:44:58