Brian J. Tarricone bjt23 at
Fri Mar 30 14:40:39 PDT 2007

On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 23:19:26 +0200 Lubos Lunak wrote:

> I thought supporting an opinion did not require one to repeat it, but
> if you 
>want: Shutdown/Reboot are basic functionality but power management
>features are an add-on that not everybody may be interested in having
>(see above for my feedback on that part). Since a DBUS interface
>cannot be split that makes the whole org.fd.PM interface optional and
>therefore Shutdown/Reboot should not be part of it.

There's nothing stopping someone from implementing a daemon that
handles org.fd.PM and only supports the Shutdown/Reboot methods.  For
the CanStandby/CanSuspend/CanHibernate methods, just return FALSE.  For
the Standby/Suspend/Hibernate methods, return the NoHardwareSupport
error.  For GetPowerSaveStatus and GetBatteryState, return FALSE.  If
other methods are added, I'm sure dummy non-implementations can be
added for people who really care about saving 200k of RAM.

At any rate, you're complaining about a specific implementation being a
memory hog.  Take your beef to the authors of that software.  The
org.fd.PM interface is mostly orthogonal.

Of course, the ridiculously ornery among us can just open a terminal
and type 'sudo poweroff'; they won't even run g-p-m or kpowersave or
whatever, and any apps they run won't be able to make use of the
advanced features org.fd.PM can offer.  Your average user who would
benefit from org.fd.PM features won't care about a meg or two of RAM
gone missing.


More information about the xdg mailing list