Session Management Proposal

[Oswald Buddenhagen]

On Mon, Dec 29, 2003 at 04:03:34PM -1000, Ray Strode wrote:
> Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> > we interpret "fast" as "shutdown without confirmation", regardless of
> > the user's setting (it is bound to shift-alt-ctrl-del, while the
> > "normal" shutdown is on "regular" alt-ctrl-del).
> 
> Okay, so you interpret the fast argument to mean "fast shutdown"
> instead of "fast save" (i.e. shutdown = False, fast = True is
> meaningless).  That sounds fine to me. 
> 
yup. matthias was not sure if he got it right - maybe he wants to
comment on this? :)=

> > "slow" would be just the opposite, i.e. "shutdown with confirmation",
> > regardless of the user's setting. independently from any other
> > client, only a part of the client doing the request. that _could_ be
> > useful for clients that want to initiate a shutdown without prior
> > explicit user action. i have no idea, whether this could be actually
> > useful for anything.
> 
> I'm not sure I completely understand this part.  By "slow" do you
> mean fast = False or are you talking about adding something new to
> the spec?
> 
about adding something new - i thought that would be clear from the
context. the other case would be "normal" as in "neither fast nor
slow", i.e., obey the user's setting (default is same as slow).

> > franky, i don't think we need to care for those who do not use a dm.
> 
> I guess this is really just an implementation detail.  The only
> important thing is that the session manager needs to be able to
> tell clients whether or not it has the ability to shutdown/reboot.
> If one session manager supports consolehelper and another one
> doesn't, it doesn't really matter so long as the desktop environments
> know when to provide the shutdown and reboot options in their
> dialogs and menus.
> 
eeeexactly.

greetings

-- 
Hi! I'm a .signature virus! Copy me into your ~/.signature, please!
--
Chaos, panic, and disorder - my work here is done.