Session Management Proposal

[Oswald Buddenhagen]

On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 09:50:19AM -0800, George wrote:
> I think the gdm protocol is semi decent in retrospect.  There are several
> things though:
> 
>   1) get rid of the authentication bullshit, start one main socket say:
>       /tmp/.dm-sockets/main for the unauthenticated stuff and then
>       per-display sockets like /tmp/.dm-sockets/:0 for the stuff that
>       requires authentication (console authentication currently).  That
>       way this can be done with unix permissions rather then the cookie
>       juggling.
>
as much as i'd like to agree with this ... i read in some man page, that
some systems simply ignore file permissions on socket nodes. depending
on which systems are affected, we or those systems are screwed ...

>   2) There should be a way to query available 'commands' so that a client
>      can see what the DM can and can't do, and this will allow gdm and kdm
>      specific commands.  Or dm-specific extended commands.
> 
yeah, just like imap does, i think: the initial greeting identifies the
manager incl. (protocol) version and lists supported capabilities. an
explicit capability command would be possible as well, but i'm not sure
we need that.

greetings

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