Please standardize Screen saver DBus interfaces

Ali Abdallah aliov at
Fri May 15 00:33:21 PDT 2009

Patryk Zawadzki wrote:
> On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 1:36 PM, Ali Abdallah <aliov at> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> It seems that the screen saver interfaces and bus name are not standard
>> yet! however i see this very important, since a media player shouldn't
>> guess which screen saver is running on the current session in order to
>> use its inhibit interface.
> Ideally it's the power management interface you use to inhibit a
> screen so this should be agreed upon instead. Screensaver is just one
> of possible implementation details of the power saving mechanism. And
> a pretty but useless one as it tends to actually drain more power ;)
Power manager inhibit interface is kind of standard, 
org.freedesktop.PowerManagement is used everywhere with some specific 
interfaces on it written by Richard Huges if i'm not wrong.

What i'm speaking about is the fact that a screen saver should have an 
inhibit interface so things like media players can make use of this to 
avoid locking the screen by the running screen saver, that is, than the 
screen saver should have a inhibit changed DBus signal to inform other 
application that locking is currently disabled, same thing as the power 
managers these days do, almost all of them have inhibit interface + 
inhibit changed signal.

> It should be up to the power manager to suspend the proper screensaver
> then (possibly including hacks or workarounds for xscreensaver that is
> not likely to get upstream support for DBus).

Send unlimited messages for free to all destinations with DBus.

More information about the xdg mailing list