On 03/08/2007 09:46, Vincent Torri wrote: > > > On Thu, 8 Mar 2007, Ravenlock wrote: > >> On 03/08/2007 00:16, Vincent Torri wrote: >>> Hey, >>> >>> I have a few questions about ecore_x_dpms.c >>> >>> 1) As an X extension, why don't we query the extension, to see if >>> it's available or not ? >> >> Thats what ecore_x_dpms_capable is responsible for. And it is used >> when initializing the config panel dialog to see if the extension is >> available (see _e_int_config_dpms_capable() in e_int_config_dpms.c). >> Have I misunderstood your question? > > I think so. See DPMSQueryExtension. Briefly, that function tells you if > the extension is available or not in your X server. DPMSCapable tells > you if the running server's devices are capable of DPMS operations or not. >
Yes, you are correct. My mistake. An ecore_x function should be added to wrap that and then it should be used in conjunction with ecore_x_dpms_capable() when initializing the dialog. That would allow for a more specific error message if need be. Such as "the extension is not present" vs "the hardware does not support it", correct? >>> 2) I would like to rename ecore_x_dpms_capable to >>> ecore_x_dpms_capable_get and *_timeout_* to *_timeouts_*. No >>> objection for that ? >>> >> >> *_capable() -> *_capable_get() is a "don't care" for me. > > ok. The I prefer _get than nothing. > >> The functions that get/set an individual timeout are named >> *_timeout_*. The one that allows you to set all at once is named >> *_timeouts_*. Is this not already what you are suggesting? > > ok for letting the name as they are now. > >>> 3) is it really necessary to have 3 functions to get the timeouts, >>> instead of one that returns all the info ? >> >> Is it *necessary*? No. Does it provide some convenience for a >> developer? Maybe? Are they even used? I forget. Why did I put them >> there in the first place? Out of habit. I have a habit (good or >> bad?) of exposing properties of "objects", if you want to view DPMS as >> such, individually. Mostly a "don't care" for me here to. > > If you want 2 or 3 of these values, you'll have 2 or 3 round trips, > instead of 1. So I would vote for adding one function that returns the 3 > values. I understand your point better now. Yes. This would be a Good Thing (TM). :) > > Vincent > > Did you want to do the suggested work, or would you like me to? -- Regards, Ravenlock ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
