screensaver and power manager dbus interfaces

Richard Hughes hughsient at
Fri Jun 2 18:36:12 EEST 2006

On Fri, 2006-06-02 at 12:42 +0200, Kevin Ottens wrote:
> Le vendredi 2 juin 2006 12:14, Holger Macht a écrit :
> > On Fri 02. Jun - 12:00:37, Kevin Ottens wrote:
> > > I'll give more thought to this and maybe rework my plans. That's an
> > > interesting point of view difference. =)
> > >
> > > Hence why, I won't argue more on this for the moment. Let's get a nice
> > > session based interface!
> >
> > Ok, that's actually what I wanted. A commitment from both desktops, GNOME
> > and KDE. So if both sides agree, I can live with it.
> Note that I said _maybe rework my plans_. Currently, I can't say for sure that 
> I'll use session daemons, I admit that I prefer a system daemon for this. But 
> It's a promise to give it more thought, since I think that this approach is 
> interesting. In the meantime, that would be counter productive to bash a 
> valuable effort simply because I have a different opinion for now. That's why 
> I want to see it more tailored and I'll even help where I can. That's the 
> best way to invest my time to decide which approach (session daemons or 
> system daemons) I like best for power management.

Sure -- thanks for keeping an open mind.

> > > That said I can live with your proposed API, so if I'm the only one
> > > to "complain" about your terminology at the API level, I'll surely use it
> > > in my own API anyway so that we're consistent (in particular if lower
> > > level layers start to use it, I would be comfortable with such a
> > > compromise).
> >
> > But that's actually my point. How can lower level layers use it if it is
> > in session context? Lower level layern usually don't reside in session
> > context, but nevermind...
> By "it", I meant the terminology (suspend+hibernate). So my point is that I 
> would be even more comfortable with such a compromise if the underlying 
> layers name "suspend to disk" as "hibernate", etc. in their own exposed API 
> (think HAL, powersave, pm-utils, etc.).

I'm hoping more and more people will choose to use our terminology; I've
certainly had lots of success with vendors who are very keen on a common
naming scheme. The translated name (desktop-visible) can be anything you
want of course, but it makes sense for all the API layers to be common
(in my opinion).


More information about the xdg mailing list