danny.kukawka at web.de
Thu Jan 24 02:15:44 PST 2008
On Donnerstag, 24. Januar 2008, Michael Biebl wrote:
> 2008/1/24, Matthias Clasen <matthias.clasen at gmail.com>:
> > On Jan 23, 2008 9:05 PM, Michael Biebl <mbiebl at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I still see no reason why this should be put into CK. Wasn't CK about
> > > tracking user sessions and seats? Imo this functionality doesn't
> > > belong into CK.
> > One reason is that you want to use knowledge about sessions and logged
> > in users when deciding how to respond to a reboot request, e.g. don't
> > allow the reboot right away when there are multiple active sessions
> > (well, maybe allow it anyway if all the other sessions are xdmcp
> > sessions). This information already lives in ConsoleKit, so
> > it seems like a good place to handle the reboot request.
> Well, CK was conceived to provide this kind of information. So e.g.
> HAL can easily query them before executing the shutdown request.
> There is no good reason why the reboot/stop functionality has to be
> put into CK. It only violates the layer boundaries for no good reason.
Again full ACK. This is a layer violation. There is absolute no reason why
this should be in CK.
If this go into CK you get yet an other layer/interface to call functions that
should be under one interface as it now is. Let simply HAL check if the usage
of the interface (org.freedesktop.Hal.Device.SystemPowerManagement) or the
method is allowed for the caller and do the needed calls to the system.
Btw. There is also absolute no reason to move any kind of powermanagement
stuff to CK. I would bet: Nobody of the powermanagement developer would like
to maintain/handle another (additional) tool for pm-tasks. HAL should do the
job, this is what all the distributions decided and do now for good reasons.
More information about the hal