org.freedesktop.PowerManagement

[Holger Macht]

On Thu 29. Mar - 16:25:51, Richard Hughes wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-03-29 at 17:24 +0200, Holger Macht wrote:
> > On Thu 29. Mar - 16:08:05, Richard Hughes wrote:
> > > On 29/03/07, Holger Macht <hmacht at suse.de> wrote:
> > > >1. Shouldn't we add a "time until wakeup" argument to the suspend call? I
> > > >   imagine a vcr application calling suspend with this argument to wakeup
> > > >   and start recording. Yes, something we can add later on.
> > > 
> > > Yes, but I don't know a single laptop this works correctly for. You
> > > could argue the same about Standby, Hibernate and Shutdown. Maybe
> > > another method TimedSleep or something?
> > 
> > Isn't it possible to define optional arguments?
> 
> With the raw DBUS I think yes, but using the bindings no, if I
> understand correctly.

The problem I see is that it's nearly impossible to add such an argument
after people actually start using it. An optional argument would be best
IMO. If that's not possible because the bindings don't support it and
nobody is willing to fix this up, I think we should go with the "0 seconds
means disabled" thing David is proposing.

> > > >2. You are calling one section "compulsory basic interface". So in case
> > > >   you don't have a real power management application such as g-p-m or
> > > >   kpowersave on the desktop, but 	 of course still need the shutdown and
> > > >   reboot interfaces, someone else (the desktop base) has to implement all
> > > >   of the others too? That seems unfeasible to me. Or am I getting
> > > >   something wrong here?
> > > 
> > > Hmm. I figured they could all be just stubs that return NoHardware or
> > > PermissionDeniedByPolicy or something like that. Maybe an error of
> > > NotImplemented should be added to the spec. A stub in python is only a
> > > few lines of code, and then we stop lazy XFCE (joke!) people from not
> > > implimenting the whole base spec.
> > 
> > NotImplemented would be the only correct return value, but from my point
> > of view, the interfaces wouldn't be compulsory anymore ;-)
> 
> Point taken. NotImplemented should be added the the 0.2 spec anyway IMO.
> 
> > I thing it has to be split and staggered in a more detailed way to become
> > sensible because shutdown and reboot have an exceptional position and must
> > be treated in a different way.
> 
> How do you mean split? You mean say that Shutdown() is optional but
> Suspend() is compulsory?

Actually I still think that Shutdown() and Reboot() is misplaced here ;-)
Those methods are available on _every_ system no matter if it will always
be able to do any other power management related tasks. So they should be
provided by someone who will be there also always.

I actually wonder why nobody else from the desktop people comment on
this. I also wonder why this problem with shutdown and reboot didn't came
up before and got defined somewhere else in the past. They seem important
to me ;-) This should be of interest all desktops. I see three
possibilities here:

 1. Either we keep shutdown and reboot mandatory like the other o.f.pm
    methods, then all desktops have to make sure that _all_ those methods
    are actually always implemented in the desktop session no matter of
    any power management application. At least they have to return
    NotSupported or the like.

 2. We all, desktop and power management people, agree that a power
    management application is compulsory in every desktop session.

 3. We and/or the desktop people define those two methods somewhere else
    to be mandatory. This way we could leave them optional in the o.f.pm
    spec application. This would be my preference.

Something else? What do you say?

Regards,
	Holger