[Bug 29914] Add idleness connection interface

[bugzilla-daemon at freedesktop.org]

https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=29914

--- Comment #6 from Simon McVittie <simon.mcvittie at collabora.co.uk> 2010-09-06 03:34:36 PDT ---
review+ as a draft. When you merge, please say which version will be the first
to have the draft, remove the patch keyword (until you make further changes),
but keep the bug open for the revision/undrafting process.

> > > +            connection can have it's powersaving mode turned on or off.</p>
> > 
> > have its power saving mode

Still to be corrected, I think?

> > 
> > > +        <tp:error name="org.freedesktop.Telepathy.Error.NotAvailable">
> > > +          <tp:docstring>
> > > +            The current connection has no power saving features.
> > 
> > I don't think this is useful. I think SetPowerSaving(TRUE) should mean "consume
> > minimum power" and FALSE should mean "behave normally"; on an XMPP connection
> > that lacks power-saving extensions like GTalk's, minimum power and behaving
> > normally are the same thing :-)
> 
> If the CM cannot switch modes, either because of the protocol (NotImplemented),
> or because of the service (NotAvailable), I think MC (or whoever manages this)
> should be made aware. They could ignore it or, in the extreme, be fascist and
> disconnect the account.

Your reasoning is persuasive; if you turn it into a <tp:rationale> and add a
note like this one, I think this behaviour would make sense:

    Errors raised by this method indicate that power saving could not be
    enabled, which SHOULD NOT generally be treated as fatal.

(Implementation detail: Mission Control will currently g_warning() all over the
place whenever it becomes unhappy. Don't treat that as exemplary - I consider
it to be a bug, Bug #23486. MC should definitely only DEBUG() on failures to
save power.)

> > This interface doesn't mention what you lose by enabling power saving.
[...]
> Yeah, I'll make it clear in the docs. Power saving should be used when the user
> is not interacting with the device, for example when the screen is locked.

Still to be done.

> It is up to the CM to be creative and
> figure out how to take power saving measures with no noticeable effects to the
> user.

Well, what's noticeable to the user depends what the user is looking for :-P
but I agree that the bitfield approach seems like overkill, and a simple
boolean will be enough in practice.

> An earlier version of the draft used a two member enum instead of binary
> on/off. I was thinking it would make it future-proof if we ever invent
> intermediate power saving modes. But I couldn't think of real world examples,
> so I dropped it.

Yeah, that makes sense.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.