kalle.vahlman at gmail.com
Thu Mar 9 09:15:38 PST 2006
On 3/9/06, Robert McQueen <robert.mcqueen at collabora.co.uk> wrote:
> Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > Kalle Vahlman wrote:
> >> This definitely sounds like stuff that should be conveyed through the
> >> system bus, doesn't it?
> > Yes.
> No, not really. How would you arbitrate this? The first user to log in
> takes the org.gnome.screensaver service name, and then the script is
> unable to request to lock anyone else's screen?
I was under the impression that it was a hardware event that userspace
programs were required to react to, not a userspace program requesting
something from other userspace programs. So the interface would be
org.foo.ACPI or maybe something more general.
I agree that user side programs shouldn't own system bus names. But
that also means that session-to-session communication is not feasible.
So the way out is to provide the service in system bus.
If you start communicating between session buses, why have them at
all? I thought the idea is to have a system bus to talk global stuff
and session bus to talk "secret" per-user stuff.
Kalle Vahlman, zuh at iki.fi
Powered by http://movial.fi
Interesting stuff at http://syslog.movial.fi
More information about the dbus