can_suspend_to_{x}

[Danny Kukawka]

On Friday 05 May 2006 22:16, Richard Hughes wrote:
> In the spirit of making everything consistent [1] I think the:
>
>   power_management.can_suspend_to_disk
>   power_management.can_suspend_to_ram
>
> keys should be:
>
>   power_management.can_hibernate
>   power_management.can_suspend

IMO no. The kernel interface in /sys/power/state provide standby, mem, disk 
why should the related keys in HAL named other than they are currently? I 
don't see a reason to change this. If you would name/translate your desktop 
application you can do what name the methodes as you want/prefer.

> As we already call the methods Suspend() and Hibernate() and I'm trying
> to make this a little more sane with all the power stuff for all the
> overlapping nomenclature. 

Why not also call this methodes SuspendToDisk() and SuspendToRAM(), which is 
for me more clear than Hibernate/suspend.

> I'm sending similar emails to other projects 
> as I want to make this as standardised as possible.

Some comments to [1]:
......................................................................
> I hope this page can convert some of the wacky/zany/confusing/crazy software 
> out there to stick to common names.

Why should a project change the name of the translations? There are projects 
which exist longer than hal/gpm and using s2ram/s2disk. Why should they 
change the by their users well known names? I see no inducement to do this.

> Developing gnome-power-manager (and a chunk of the power management in HAL) 
> gives me first-hand experience of the ways users, distros, packagers and 
> developers can and do get this wrong.

Why do you think they do this wrong? For KDE e.g. IMO everybody know already 
the terms s2ram/s2disk/standby from klaptop and kpowersave since a long time. 
Why should this be wrong and why should they change this?

> Bad Nomenclature
> - Sleep  
> - Standby
> - Suspend-to-RAM 

Btw. Standby is used under KDE related to standby from /sys/power/state. 

......................................................................

> I figure getting the same names so it all makes sense when we document
> it, is worth the short term pain of breaking (undocumented?) API.

No, this is not undocumented API. Take a look at the SPEC.

> [1] http://live.gnome.org/GnomePowerManager/SleepNames

Danny