On Fri 02. Jun - 12:00:37, Kevin Ottens wrote: > Le jeudi 1 juin 2006 20:31, Richard Hughes a écrit : > > On Thu, 2006-06-01 at 20:10 +0200, Kevin Ottens wrote: > > To interact with the session we need this to be session context rather > > than system context. > > Not sure I understood you. AFAIK, you can perfectly make calls to the system > daemon and listen to signals... Could you be a bit more precise about the > kind of interaction you're talking about? Is it because of the inactivity > detection? > > > Plus with David's work, the distinction between > > session and system will be a lot smaller. For powersaved, any session > > program can just process and forward any stuff to a system daemon is > > required, as a bit of session glue is required anyway for the > > notifications and per-user config etc. > > Well, that was my point. We'll end up with pure proxies and I'm not sure it's > desirable. I'm not denying the existence of user notifications and per-user > config, but I didn't really plan to keep them in power management specific > daemons that would implement such a session interface... > > I'll give more thought to this and maybe rework my plans. That's an > interesting point of view difference. =) > > Hence why, I won't argue more on this for the moment. Let's get a nice > session > based interface!
Ok, that's actually what I wanted. A commitment from both desktops, GNOME and KDE. So if both sides agree, I can live with it. > > > I've written lots about this in the past: > > http://live.gnome.org/GnomePowerManager/SleepNames -- converting between > > one name "for developers" and one name "for users" makes everyone very > > confused when people start having problems. I'll not write more here, as > > I've explained why RAM and DISK are words we should avoid on the wiki. > > Well you explained why they are words we should avoid for users. ;-) > But I see your point. I'd say we agree to disagree here, since I'm perfectly > fine with having different terms in the GUI and in the API. > > That said I can live with your proposed API, so if I'm the only one > to "complain" about your terminology at the API level, I'll surely use it in > my own API anyway so that we're consistent (in particular if lower level > layers start to use it, I would be comfortable with such a compromise). But that's actually my point. How can lower level layers use it if it is in session context? Lower level layern usually don't reside in session context, but nevermind... [...] Regards, Holger _______________________________________________ xdg mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
