On Thu, 2007-12-27 at 13:51 +0000, John Carr wrote: > > > 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. >
Good, I agree. > > > 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.. > Ah ok, my lack of sync knowledge is showing here. I had assumed the device wouldn't try to sync until signalled from the host side, ie sync-engine, in which case we would have all the time in the world to start up whatever is required. I take it this is not the case. Mark ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
