On Friday 02 June 2006 15:30, Rodrigo Moya wrote: [...] > > > Name: setDpmsMode > > > Args: STRING > > > value: on 100% > > > standby <80% > > > suspend <30W > > > off <8W > > > Returns: (nothing) > > > Description: DPMS is a standard from the VESA consortium for > > > managing the power supply of monitors. > > > This call requests a change in the state of DPMS for > > > the current screen. > > > > > > Name: getDpmsMode > > > Args: (none) > > > Returns: STRING > > > Descriptions: Returns the DPMS mode state. > > > See setDpmsMode(). > > > > Do we really need them? We have the X extensions/functions for that. > > for the same reason I think we should add the Reboot and keep Shutdown > methods, I think it's better if apps use only a standard interface for > all power management-related tasks than having to use dbus for some > operations, X libs for another, etc. Of course, as you say, this is just > a convencience wrapper, but that would make it easier for the developer, > I think.
But then you need to reimplement (nearly) the complete DPMS Extension from the X-Server (see www.xfree86.org/current/DPMSLib.pdf: DPMSCapable, DPMSSetTimeouts, DPMSGetTimeouts, DPMSEnable/-Disable ...) if you would make it easier for the developer and this is simply: "reinvent the wheel". Do we really need this? IMO not, there is already a library for this issues and we don't need one more proxy which call at the end a function of this lib (which is also more expensive than use the lib directly). Danny _______________________________________________ xdg mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
