Suspend and NetworkManager

[Jaap Haitsma]

David Zeuthen wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-01-11 at 16:17 +0100, Jaap Haitsma wrote:
> 
>>>>This seems just one 
>>>>extra layer which is not really necessary.
>>>
>>>
>>>But it is necessary in order to do this. What's the problem?
>>>
>>
>>There's no problem. It's only weird that we do hibernate/suspend in HAL 
>>and sending "wake"/"sleep" signals in gpm. Since both of these are 
>>heavily related I'd expect they would be in the same module.
>>
>>I.e. sending the signals and implemeting the hibernate/suspend method 
>>both in gpm or both in HAL
>>
>>Is it a problem to both in HAL?
> 
> 
> Yes, it violates layering and introduce policy into HAL as in how long
> the timeout should be for applications requesting a delay. (This
> shouldn't be more than 2-5 seconds - I think that MS changes this from
> infinity to 2 seconds going from Windows XP to Vista btw).
> 
> It's also more correct doing it in g-p-m as we then have access to a
> display where we can put notification bubbles a'la "the application Foo
> is preventing standby" though that may or may not be a good idea from a
> UI point of view. 
> 
> Another thing is that g-p-m has a lot more information - g-p-m *knows*
> whether the suspend request came from 1) closing the laptop lid; 2)
> inactivity; 3) someone pressing the sleep hot-key; 4) request from other
> app in the session; 5) battery critically low. For example for 3) it
> might make sense to put up a bubble, whereas it don't make sense for at
> least 1) and 5).
> 
> We shouldn't overengineer things though :-)
> 
> Ideally the interface that g-p-m publishes on the session-bus should be
> standardized on freedesktop.org so we'd have interoperability between
> for example KDE and GNOME.
> 
I'm convinced :-)

Jaap