On Sat, 2010-03-27 at 08:33 +0000, David Bremner wrote: > On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 08:15:02 +0100, Patrick Ohly <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Should we send out the remaining minutes regularly while the server is > > waiting, say every five minutes, or should the GUI implement its own > > countdown? If it is sent regularly, the GUI and API become easier (no > > need to do anything except for reacting to the signal, no need for a > > "get" method). The drawback is of course coarse update intervals of the > > display or frequent D-Bus traffic. > > > > At the risk of stating the obvious, please consider the effects on > battery life of any polling process you decide to implement. I'm not an > expert, but I would worry about any kind of logging activity that might > spin the disk up.
I agree, the sync-ui should never be forced to poll. None of the D-Bus messages should result in disk activity, so I'm less worried about regular status updates sent via D-Bus. The exception is that these updates really have to be infrequent enough to be barely noticable (IMHO every 5 minutes would be okay). The question to the consumers of such an event then becomes: is this too coarse to be useful? Jussi, what do you think? The sync-ui would not be the only consumer of this information. The patches for making the command line tool a D-Bus client are ready. We have tentative "--status" and "--monitor" command line options to query resp. monitor the daemon. "Tentative" because "--monitor" cannot be used to connect to an idle daemon yet, only to a running session. Before we document it, we probably need to think about the usage a bit more. -- Best Regards Patrick Ohly Senior Software Engineer Intel GmbH Open Source Technology Center Pützstr. 5 Phone: +49-228-2493652 53129 Bonn Germany _______________________________________________ SyncEvolution mailing list [email protected] http://lists.syncevolution.org/listinfo/syncevolution
