[PATCH] Adding an argument to Sleeping signal

[Richard Hughes]

On 30 March 2011 16:30, Phillip Susi <psusi at cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> If I am reading this correctly, it looks like upower provides a little
> client library to wrap the dbus calls, and your patch is modifying that.
>  In my patch I just modified the dbus interface and patched g-p-m to use
> dbus directly.  Why have the shim instead?

The shim library was only really useful before we had GDBus, now it's
a little redundant.

>> I'm still not sure if it's a sensible thing to change the public DBus
>> API at this stage, as other things are using the existing signals
>> (notably, NetworkManager). David, Kay, any advice?
>
> Before you said:
>
>> I think breaking API now is okay. You have to define a
>> I_KNOW_THE_API_IS_UNSTABLE define to use upower now anyway.
>
> Change your mind?

Perhaps. I'm not super keen on changing an interface used by loads of
projects. I think a new signal name might be better. I've not made up
my mind yet to be honest.

>  Also it looks like g-p-m pokes nm on suspend/resume.
> Does nm also directly monitor the upower signals?  If so, that seems to
> be a duplication of work.

I think we dropped the NM pokage in g-p-m master, no?

Richard.