G-P-M on the wrong track?!

[John (J5) Palmieri]

On Mon, 2005-10-17 at 23:34 +0100, Richard Hughes wrote:

> 
> Then effectively you are reading in values from hal, and then
> re-processing them.. It's a whole lot of duplication of effort. It's not
> difficult to work out if a laptop is on battery charge using HAL
> (because of the abstraction of APM, PMU, and ACPI), so I don't see why
> we need a little system daemon to do it for us.

So educate me here.  What is HAL processing?  It tells you the level of
the batteries, it tells you if you are using AC power, it tells you if
the lid is closed.  Those would all stay in HAL.

All I am suggesting is the parts that say "put the computer in XXX
state" be placed in a daemon and a D-Bus interface be used to control
those states.  The daemon itself would act as a default policy client
sans a logged in user.  The truth is power management should work even
if gpm isn't loaded.  I agree with that point of previous posters.  The
only change to your client is that you would be calling into a different
interface.

I'll see what David's concerns are tomorrow.  

-- 
John (J5) Palmieri <johnp at redhat.com>