On Saturday 02 July 2005 18:14, John (J5) Palmieri wrote: > On Sat, 2005-07-02 at 13:30 +0200, Waldo Bastian wrote: > > On Friday 01 July 2005 21:59, John (J5) Palmieri wrote: > > > Having an autostart for simple programs and daemons sounds fine to me > > > but I think there is a bit too much being put into this. In order to > > > have a true dependency system of which we are working on with > > > libgnomeservice in gnome cvs, it gets a bit more complicated than just > > > dropping a file in the right location. > > > > > > I think having a spec for easily dropping a desktop file in a common > > > location to autostart a program is fine but I think we should let > > > projects explore the more complicated stuff before writing up a spec > > > that will please no one. Projects have to define and find their needs > > > before we can have a unified system. > > > > Within KDE we have a reasonable understanding what the needs are (for > > KDE) and we have an implementation that meets those needs. With that > > said, if you think it's more appropriate to limit the fd.o spec for now > > to the "allowing a user to autostart programs they would like autostarted > > in their session" use-case then that's ok with me. > > > > Cheers, > > Waldo > > Hey Waldo, > > I would like a brief overview of what KDE does.
* Dependency handling wrt other autostart services to ensure a specific startup order (e.g. start panel before starting panel applet) This requires a definition of when a service is finished starting up. * Conditional autostart: start is dependent on the value of a specified boolean configuration key. This is hard to standardize though, as long as there isn't a common configuration system. * Whether to start the service before or after (xsm style) session restoration. > Here is where I see we > should start: > > - Agree upon a user directory where we can drop desktop files into for > starting up upon login. This should be desktop independent and not > contain desktop dependent services as of yet (i.e. desktops should not > use this as their service starting framework, it should be for the user > only). If a service is required for the desktop it shouldn't be user > visible anyway. Ok. > - Questions raised: should we have a system wide directory where > third parties can drop desktop files where their RPM/DEB/etc. is > installed? Yes, I would think so. > - Agree upon a wrapper executable name and command line switches. We > need a wrapper to make things simpler when working with d-bus. This is > a forward looking requirement for when there is a full service > framework. Having a common wrapper interface allows services to be > integrated into a desktop's framework without the service having to know > anything about that framework. The wrapper is the liaison, knowing how > to talk with the system and exec the service. I'm not sure I follow this, to what extent is a .desktop file with a Exec= line not sufficient? Or do you mean that you want a wrapper executable to access dbus service activation? > That is the first step requirements at least from the GNOME side. It is > simple and should produce a simple spec that everyone can follow. It > also allows for expansion and migration in the future. Cheers, Waldo
pgp3zwBzIAmHt.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ xdg mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
