On Thu, 2006-06-01 at 12:08 +0200, Jaap Karssenberg wrote: > Thiago Macieira wrote: > > Rodrigo Moya wrote: > > > >> On Wed, 2006-05-31 at 17:48 -0700, Bastian, Waldo wrote: > >> > >>> The screensaver interface looks good. What is the use case for the > >>> "Poke" method? > >>> > >> I guess it can be used by apps like video players to prevent the > >> screensaver to fire while showing the movie. > >> > > > > It should be enough to disable the screensaver and re-enable it when done. > > > > Disable/enable should be ref-counted so that if two applications ask for > > the screensaver to be disabled, both have to ask for it to be turned on > > again before it is.
Yes, it is refcounted by use of a cookie. > What about the case where my video player disables the screensaver and > subsequently dies ? When using a "poke" or "beat" interface this is no > problem and the screensaver will kick in again when appropriate. On the > other hand if the screensaver is waiting for an "enable" call from my > video player that never comes this will leave my desktop in an undesired > state. If the app crashes, then we get a bus disconnect from the :foo name, which we can automatically remove any lock(s) for the application. This is already done in g-p-m and g-s CVS. Richard. _______________________________________________ xdg mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
