expanding the inhibit spec

David Faure faure at kde.org
Sun Feb 2 02:24:16 PST 2014

On Thursday 09 January 2014 12:49:19 Ryan Lortie wrote:
> That's why I prefer two completely separate mechanisms: block to stop
> the process from occurring in the first place, and (if no blocks are
> there) a round of signals, after which there is absolutely nothing that
> apps can do to prevent the shutdown from proceeding.

Note that this is exactly how good old X11 session management works :-)

I don't know the low-level XSMP names for these things, but that the Qt level 
it ends up with "commitDataRequest" (where users can be prompted to save 
unsaved data) and "saveStateRequest" in the second round, for saving just 
before exiting.
I much rather prefer that over SIGTERM, which is not modular (can't have more 
than one handler) and awkward to integrate in C++.

David Faure, faure at kde.org, http://www.davidfaure.fr
Working on KDE, in particular KDE Frameworks 5

More information about the xdg mailing list