screensaver and power manager dbus interfaces

David Zeuthen david at
Thu Jun 1 22:09:17 EEST 2006

On Thu, 2006-06-01 at 15:05 -0400, David Zeuthen wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-06-01 at 20:44 +0200, Holger Macht wrote:
> > > To interact with the session we need this to be session context rather
> > > than system context. Plus with David's work, the distinction between
> > > session and system will be a lot smaller. For powersaved, any session
> > > program can just process and forward any stuff to a system daemon is
> > > required, as a bit of session glue is required anyway for the
> > > notifications and per-user config etc.
> > 
> > The session can also interact with a interface on the system bus, of
> > course.
> > 
> > If it is a interface in session context, a system daemon has no
> > possibility to step in. In case if it would be an interface on the system
> > bus, also session applications can grab it. So I see no real disadvantages
> > in having an interface on the system bus.
> The problem, Holger, is that if the org.freedesktop.PowerManager service
> is on the system bus, it's awkward and backwards to interact with the
> desktop session using notifications and dialogs. It's not impossible,
> just pretty awkward. 

Also, forgot to mention, we need the org.freedesktop.PowerManager
service on the session bus as your session may span several systems and
some day traffic on the session bus can be forwarded over the X


More information about the xdg mailing list