On Thu, 26.06.08 00:48, Bastien Nocera ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > On Thu, 2008-06-26 at 01:45 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: > > On Wed, 25.06.08 19:07, William Jon McCann ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > > > We can still support applications that only know if they should > > > inhibit "just in time" by emitting a signal when a logout is > > > requested. The applications can then take an inhibit in response to > > > that signal. > > > > This part sounds racy. Is it? > > > > Apropos, since we are talking about session management here: have you > > guys ever thought of reuseíng upstart for managing session processes? The > > problem that an init system and a session manager have is the same: > > doing lifecycle management of processes and all kinds of fancy > > monitoring of them. > > But session shutdown is interactive, and system shutdown isn't. That's a > big difference. I also don't think that init systems have the concept of > restoration.
Sure there are differences. I am not suggesting to replac gsm with upstart. I am just suggesting that starting and monitoring system and session processes should be handled by the same code. Because starting and monitoring process is difficult. Actually more difficult than most people might think. Doing this properly on Unix is actually really hard. Lennart -- Lennart Poettering Red Hat, Inc. lennart [at] poettering [dot] net ICQ# 11060553 http://0pointer.net/lennart/ GnuPG 0x1A015CC4 _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
