screensaver and power manager dbus interfaces
hmacht at suse.de
Thu Jun 1 21:44:56 EEST 2006
On Thu 01. Jun - 19:31:36, Richard Hughes wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-06-01 at 20:10 +0200, Kevin Ottens wrote:
> > Le jeudi 1 juin 2006 00:01, Richard Hughes a écrit :
> > > Okay, my first post to this list, so I hope I'm aiming in the right
> > > direction.
> > >
> > > gnome power manager : org.gnome.PowerManager
> > > gnome screensaver : org.gnome.ScreenSaver
> > >
> > > This should probably be cross desktop and less gnome-y as there's no
> > > reason another program shouldn't just drop in as a replacement for
> > > either xfce, kde or just a slim-line gnome replacement.
> > In the following I'll assume that you expect the "org.gnome.PowerManager" to
> > be implementer by a session daemon since that's what g-p-m is. Although I
> > fully understand the need for a session daemon regarding screensaver, I'm not
> > sure I like the idea of a per session daemon for power management.
> To interact with the session we need this to be session context rather
> than system context. Plus with David's work, the distinction between
> session and system will be a lot smaller. For powersaved, any session
> program can just process and forward any stuff to a system daemon is
> required, as a bit of session glue is required anyway for the
> notifications and per-user config etc.
The session can also interact with a interface on the system bus, of
If it is a interface in session context, a system daemon has no
possibility to step in. In case if it would be an interface on the system
bus, also session applications can grab it. So I see no real disadvantages
in having an interface on the system bus.
> > I'm not sure I like the "Suspend", "Hibernate", "CanSuspend", "CanHibernate"
> > naming. Although it makes sense to use such metaphors for the GUI, I'd expect
> > the API to state exactly what it does. So using SuspendToRam, SuspendToDisk
> > and Standby (which is lacking currently, but afaik it's not really used so
> > that's not really a problem I guess) would make me happier.
> I've written lots about this in the past:
> http://live.gnome.org/GnomePowerManager/SleepNames -- converting between
> one name "for developers" and one name "for users" makes everyone very
> confused when people start having problems. I'll not write more here, as
> I've explained why RAM and DISK are words we should avoid on the wiki.
And there was a lot of discrepancies already about this. I just can't get
why we should paraphrase technical phrases when discussiing with
> > Regarding "Shutdown", I'm wondering if it's companion "Reboot" should be in
> > the interface too?
> For completeness, probably.
Why do we need this to stay in a power management context? There will be
definitely another interface providing "Shutdown" and "Reboot" in the
future for both desktops, because you want to do this also if noone
grabbed the power management interface.
More information about the xdg