Wirrunna;433927 Wrote: > Gordon, another point to add in the help files (if you haven't already > done so) is that SCPowerTool keeps the Server log open, so in XP if you > want to delete the log to start fresh with a new release, you have to > close SCPowerTool with the task manager before you can delete the log. Huh. That's surprising. While SCPowerTool.exe does write to the system events log, it doesn't touch the SC server.log. I wouldn't have expected this and it makes me wonder if SqueezeCenter isn't formally closing the log file and is depending on the OS to close it once it sees that the SC process has terminated.
Perhpas this could be solved by using StartHidden.exe to execute SCPowerTool. By necessity, I'm using StartHidden to launch SCPowerTool as a fully detached process for the "Restart SqueezeCenter" action on SC 7.3.x. Perhaps I ought to do this for every invocation of SCPowerTool. I'll try to do some tests on this before the next "release". Thanks for pointing this out. Also, there ought to be an easier way to kill instances of SCPowerTool without having to resort to the task manager. Perhaps a "--cancel-wakeup" parameter which would have the effect of killing any instances that have pending wakeup timers. I have a feeling that this is easier said than done in via actual code, though....especially since, as now written, SCPowerTool doesn't have a real message loop. Anyway...this sort of problem just points out how weirdly the whole system wakeup issue is handled by windows, as compared to linux and osx. With the latter OSs, the kernel supplies a driver that completely abstracts the programming of the bios rtc wake alarm. With these, after a simple call, the system will wake itself from any power state, including stone cold off. With windows, afaik there is no way to directly program that rtc wake alarm. Wakeup on windows is really a side effect of asking the OS to service a timer in a dormant process that's hanging around in the background waiting for that call...and nothing else...and, oh yes, please wake the system up if you need to to get this done, Mr. windows kernel. I think of myself as being more adept at writing C code for windows that at writing bash scripts. But this is one area where windows seems really primitive. It seems strange to me that windows fails offer what seems like such a basic facility. Maybe I should rethink this whole approach and instead of using waitable timers to do this, try programming the system task scheduler instead. -- gharris999 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ gharris999's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=115 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=48521 _______________________________________________ plugins mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/plugins
