G-P-M on the wrong track?!

[Matthias Grimm]

On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 12:41:26 +0100
Richard Hughes <hughsient at gmail.com> wrote:

Hi,
Part II of the split up mega mail :-)

DBus
------
> Yes it breaks concepts. It uses DBUS to lock down who can do what, so
> that the default desktop user doesn't have to enter a root password to
> change a hibernation setting.

DBus is out of discussion here. I know that a communication path between
processes is needed and dbus seems to be the choice. So I have no
problem with dbus.

> HAL doesn't "do everything" -- it now provides a sane abstraction for
> devices (in my opinion). You can call SetLCDBrightness on a LCD panel
> device, or Suspend on the Computer device, but that's about it for the
> scope of methods.

This could be much better done with dbus than with HAL. Why don't we
define a SetLCDBrightness Signal and broadcast it to interested servers?
Dbus is also some type of abstraction layer but this approach fits
better to the HAL dogma: Get information from HAL but talk with the
device/daemon directly.

> The beauty of using HAL addons is that the acpi method is only run for
> acpi systems, the csr addon is only for wireless battery and mouse
> etc. You do not have to start one system service like apmd, or acpid
> or pmud on install, HAL will start the correct addon(s) automatically
> depending on your hardware.

Every power management daemon could do the same.

 Best Regards
   Matthias