I'm the developer for XBMCs power integration (nearly all dbus related stuff actually). And you can take a look at our code if you wish, the power integration is rather simple since were mostly an application but it's neatly abstracted (i.e. XBMC doesn't know if it's hal, devicekit old, new devicekit and when released upower). So long as they bump the daemon version (which they will) I can understand doing name changes, better now than in a few years when it's standard :)<div> <br></div><div>All these classes should be able to come right out and work outside, I've been meaning to add battery notifications and such to this aswell.<br><div><br></div><div>The files are (<a href="http://xbmc.org/trac/browser/trunk/">http://xbmc.org/trac/browser/trunk/</a>):</div> <div>xbmc/PowerManager.[h|cpp]</div><div>xbmc/IPowerSyscall.h (the interface).</div><div>xbmc/linux/ConsoleDeviceKitPowerSyscall.[h.cpp]</div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 6:08 AM, Ali Abdallah <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:aliov@xfce.org">aliov@xfce.org</a>></span> wrote:<br> <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div class="im">David Zeuthen wrote:<br> > On Thu, 2009-12-03 at 09:08 +0100, Ali Abdallah wrote:<br> ><br> >> Are you able to give satisfying answer now?<br> >><br> ><br> > Yes.<br> ><br> </div>What is it?<br> <div class="im"><br> ><br> >> i don't understand what is the benefit of changing the D-Bus<br> >> name and involving developers/packagers in a extra work for<br> >> just nothing.<br> >><br> ><br> > This could have been the case with any new DeviceKit-disks release as we<br> > specifically never promised any ABI or API stability whatsoever - the<br> > NEWS file is very clear on that. At least udisks will provide some level<br> > of ABI stability.<br> ><br> </div>I'm not speaking about the API/ABI stability, we all are expecting<br> changes here, but i never expected<br> changes in the package name itself and the D-Bus service name(s), and i<br> dunno how this change is going<br> to provide more ABI stability as you said! i'm the author of the Xfce<br> power manager and i was ready to release<br> a devkit version with HAL free+a small battery plugin for our panel, but<br> now things started to be even more<br> complicated to us, specially for the core desktop.<br> <br> I really don't understand what is the benefit of changing the name, the<br> switch from HAL to devkit was<br> understandable, but now please please please STOP.<br> <br> > David<br> ><br> <br> Best Regards.<br> <div><div></div><div class="h5"><br> ><br> > _______________________________________________<br> > devkit-devel mailing list<br> > <a href="mailto:devkit-devel@lists.freedesktop.org">devkit-devel@lists.freedesktop.org</a><br> > <a href="http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/devkit-devel" target="_blank">http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/devkit-devel</a><br> ><br> <br> _______________________________________________<br> devkit-devel mailing list<br> <a href="mailto:devkit-devel@lists.freedesktop.org">devkit-devel@lists.freedesktop.org</a><br> <a href="http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/devkit-devel" target="_blank">http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/devkit-devel</a><br> </div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div>