On Sun, 2006-01-22 at 19:26 +0800, James Henstridge wrote: > >There's just a lot of corner cases and I do think these justify g-p-m if > >we want the right user experience. All this is about policy and thus > >don't belong in HAL. Btw, is it now more clear that we need the policy > >piece in the desktop session and not on a system-level? > > > > > Okay, it does sound like some per-user program is necessary to handle > these parts of the power management system. The fact that the g-p-m > contains special knowledge of gnome-screensaver still seems a weird way > of doing things, and won't scale as more apps become aware of power > management events.
Ohh yes, there is talk of g-p-m having a session DBUS interface for programs to register for, like gnome-screensaver and Network Manager. At the moment, you are right, and these are hardcoded. > As an example, say the Totem developers decide it would be nice to > disable the video pipeline when the laptop's lid is closed to conserve > power. It would be much easier to do this by making totem listen for a > broadcast, rather than modifying g-p-m to send a special notification to > Totem. Ohh yes, I totally agree. We've got bugs open trying to hash out the details, and we're actively working on the issues at the moment. Richard. _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
