On Thu, 2007-03-29 at 20:42 +0200, Holger Macht wrote: > On Thu 29. Mar - 16:25:51, Richard Hughes wrote: > > On Thu, 2007-03-29 at 17:24 +0200, Holger Macht wrote: > > > On Thu 29. Mar - 16:08:05, Richard Hughes wrote: > > > > On 29/03/07, Holger Macht <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > >1. Shouldn't we add a "time until wakeup" argument to the suspend > > > > >call? I > > > > > imagine a vcr application calling suspend with this argument to > > > > > wakeup > > > > > and start recording. Yes, something we can add later on. > > > > > > > > Yes, but I don't know a single laptop this works correctly for. You > > > > could argue the same about Standby, Hibernate and Shutdown. Maybe > > > > another method TimedSleep or something? > > > > > > Isn't it possible to define optional arguments? > > > > With the raw DBUS I think yes, but using the bindings no, if I > > understand correctly. > > The problem I see is that it's nearly impossible to add such an argument > after people actually start using it. An optional argument would be best > IMO. If that's not possible because the bindings don't support it and > nobody is willing to fix this up, I think we should go with the "0 seconds > means disabled" thing David is proposing.
Sure, I think I'm agreeing with you. Do we need such an argument for Hibernate and Standby? I'm not thinking ACPI, I'm thinking ARM (and the future). > > > > >2. You are calling one section "compulsory basic interface". So in case > > > > > you don't have a real power management application such as g-p-m or > > > > > kpowersave on the desktop, but of course still need the > > > > > shutdown and > > > > > reboot interfaces, someone else (the desktop base) has to implement > > > > > all > > > > > of the others too? That seems unfeasible to me. Or am I getting > > > > > something wrong here? > > > > > > > > Hmm. I figured they could all be just stubs that return NoHardware or > > > > PermissionDeniedByPolicy or something like that. Maybe an error of > > > > NotImplemented should be added to the spec. A stub in python is only a > > > > few lines of code, and then we stop lazy XFCE (joke!) people from not > > > > implimenting the whole base spec. > > > > > > NotImplemented would be the only correct return value, but from my point > > > of view, the interfaces wouldn't be compulsory anymore ;-) > > > > Point taken. NotImplemented should be added the the 0.2 spec anyway IMO. > > > > > I thing it has to be split and staggered in a more detailed way to become > > > sensible because shutdown and reboot have an exceptional position and must > > > be treated in a different way. > > > > How do you mean split? You mean say that Shutdown() is optional but > > Suspend() is compulsory? > > Actually I still think that Shutdown() and Reboot() is misplaced here ;-) > Those methods are available on _every_ system no matter if it will always > be able to do any other power management related tasks. So they should be > provided by someone who will be there also always. > > I actually wonder why nobody else from the desktop people comment on > this. I also wonder why this problem with shutdown and reboot didn't came > up before and got defined somewhere else in the past. They seem important > to me ;-) This should be of interest all desktops. I see three > possibilities here: > > 1. Either we keep shutdown and reboot mandatory like the other o.f.pm > methods, then all desktops have to make sure that _all_ those methods > are actually always implemented in the desktop session no matter of > any power management application. At least they have to return > NotSupported or the like. My favourite. > 2. We all, desktop and power management people, agree that a power > management application is compulsory in every desktop session. Well, the said application could literally be an 80 line python file. > 3. We and/or the desktop people define those two methods somewhere else > to be mandatory. This way we could leave them optional in the o.f.pm > spec application. This would be my preference. I don't think we should specify per-method to be compulsory, but per-interface seems sane. What does everybody else think? Cheers. Richard. _______________________________________________ xdg mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
