On 4/3/07, Oswald Buddenhagen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, Apr 03, 2007 at 09:07:13AM +0100, Richard Hughes wrote:
> No, we need to provide a way for clients to delay (think to save a
> file) or to cancel the shutdown (say encoding a file),
> although the latter use case can be dealt with using the more suited
> inhibit system.
>
fwiw, i don't think it's more suited (why should it?).
given that the callback mechanism is necessary anyway, why introduce a
second system that manages state in the service?
What about system-level apps that need to inhibit (think daemons)?
They have no session daemon to register to.
System-level locking is still needed and it's more suited as it does
not require you to register any foobar callbacks that just return
FALSE, instead you just obtain a lock on a specific HAL device and
free the lock when you're done.
--
Patryk Zawadzki
Generated Content
_______________________________________________
xdg mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
