Please standardize Screen saver DBus interfaces

[Oswald Buddenhagen]

On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 03:30:31PM +0200, Ali Abdallah wrote:
> Anyway i still think that screen savers should use the same DBus name,  
> not because of the inhibit interface, but because of other services they 
> might provide,

> like lock unlock,
>
i guess ... though i have no idea in what sense. :}

the locking scenario seems to be generally not supported too well by
x11. in kde we recently run into the problem that override windows
cannot be reliably hidden by the screensaver. i wonder what other do?

> SimulateUserActivity, 
>
that's exactly XResetScreensaver

> GetSessionIdleTime, etc... .
> 
XScreenSaverQueryInfo

generally, also feel quite a dislike for this d-bus mania which is
usually justified with phrases equivalent to "x11 is fubared". fix it
instead of re-inventing the wheel just because it seems simpler.