org.freedesktop.PowerManagement

[Rodrigo Moya]

On Fri, 2007-03-30 at 13:01 +0200, Holger Macht wrote:
> On Fri 30. Mar - 13:04:45, Rodrigo Moya wrote:
> > On Thu, 2007-03-29 at 20:42 +0200, Holger Macht wrote:
> > > 
> > > 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?
> > > 
> > I think Shutdown and Reboot are power management operations, so they
> > make sense in the o.f.pm interface, so I would vote for having them
> > mandatory and the others optional, so that every desktop can implement
> > what they want/can
> 
> Would make sense. So every desktop has to provide
> org.freedesktop.PowerManagement. As soon as there is a smarter
> application, it can grab the interface and can provide additional ones
> (Suspend(), ...). But it would still only forward it to the desktop
> itself.
> 
> Currently we are limited by the fact that different methods on the same
> interface can't be handled by different services. Any way so solve this?
> 
but we can have different services implementing the same methods, so I
guess we could have some form of capabilities or something:

	enum Capabilities {
		BASIC = 0x01
		SUSPEND = 0x02
		HIBERNATE = 0x04
		etc }
	Capabilities getCapabilities ();
	bool hasCapabilities (Capabilities cap)

so that apps could ask the different implementations what they support
and use the ones they need.

Not sure if that's what you meant
-- 
Rodrigo Moya <rodrigo at gnome-db.org>