screensaver and power manager dbus interfaces

Holger Macht hmacht at
Thu Jun 1 22:21:35 EEST 2006

On Thu 01. Jun - 15:05:18, 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. 

Well, I think Networkmanager perfectly demonstrates that it can be done in
a good way and is not awkward.


More information about the xdg mailing list