> > While that would work, are we happy having 2 programs resident all the > > time, even when they are not needed? I personally hardly ever care > > Two programs ? Do you mean *dccm and sync-engine ? Having this split > seems like a good idea to me. *dccm is solely concerned with access to > the device, irrespective of whether you want file access, syncing, etc. > Sync-engine is concerned with one aspect of a connected device ie. > syncing. Is this what you meant ?
Yes Mark. John's version of events had odccm and sync-engine running all the time. Or to be specific: odccm is running all the time and sync-engine is running all the time a user is logged in. If I don't plan to connect my device then those programs are using resources that they need not be using. That is what I meant. > > about syncing and would no doubt be bothered that I have these extra > > programs running for the once or twice a week task of syncing. Though > > I don't think they'll dent the 2gb of RAM in this machine, its still > > resources being used that don't need to be. In the long run i'd only > > accept this approach if we took 3 steps: Minimize memory used, > > minimize any timer based activity (waking up when a device isnt even > > attached is just wasting my laptops battery) and make sure that the > > ports are only open on the device interfaces (vdccm was exploitable, > > if we bound to a public facing interface like my wifi card i would be > > very afraid). Of course these are all hypothetical and just random > > brain farts... > > Hal-dccm will only run when a device is connected. I agree that it would > be nice to only kick off sync-engine in a similar way, but I do think it > should be a user session based action, rather than a system one. Agreed. D-bus activation would be one way to achieve that - when the sync plugin attempts to talk to sync-engine over dbus, sync-engine is started by the dbus session daemon (therefore under the correct user session). But i'm not sure how that would hurt sync-engine (hence my original e-mail) - i suspect it wouldn't cope with it as the device will likely try to sync in the background and the AirSync server just won't have been started.. John ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ SynCE-Devel mailing list SynCE-Devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/synce-devel
