Oswald Buddenhagen ossi at
Tue Apr 3 01:48:08 PDT 2007

On Tue, Apr 03, 2007 at 09:07:13AM +0100, Richard Hughes wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-04-02 at 20:09 -0400, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> > Richard Hughes wrote:
> > > And also provides a method for applications to register a callback
> > > for, something like:
> > > 
> > > Register(void)
> > 
> > Just a signal should be fine, no? (if the idea is to signal on
> > logout)
> No, we need to provide a way for clients to delay (think to save a
> file) or to cancel the shutdown (say encoding a file),

> although the latter use case can be dealt with using the more suited
> inhibit system.
fwiw, i don't think it's more suited (why should it?).
given that the callback mechanism is necessary anyway, why introduce a
second system that manages state in the service?
o.fd.SessionManagement should start as a reimplementation of XSMP on top
of d-bus and keep compatibility with the state model, as it is to be
expected that for a reasonably long time to come every session manager
has to implement both protocols.
based on that, the inhibit would be just another callback round before
the usual saveYourself requests (which might request interaction).

Hi! I'm a .signature virus! Copy me into your ~/.signature, please!
Chaos, panic, and disorder - my work here is done.

More information about the xdg mailing list