On so 31. března 2007, David Zeuthen wrote: > On Sat, 2007-03-31 at 00:08 +0200, Lubos Lunak wrote: > > Or do you have more reasons besides Inhibit() that'd require > > shutdown/reboot to be in the power management interface? > > Not really; personally I'd like to get rid of them but the point about > that if a caller inhibits the PM interface it should inhibit the > Shutdown/Logout/Reboot interface as well. It seems you are suggestion > two specs then: > > org.freedesktop.PowerManagement - but without Shutdown() and Reboot() > > and this one > > org.freedesktop.SessionManagement > Shutdown() > Reboot() > Logout() > Inhibit(String app, String reason) > The way this could work is then that org.fd.PM.Inhibit() would also call > Inhibit() on org.fd.SM.
Session management does not have any Inhibit( app, reason ), that's not how it works. If you edit a file in a text editor and it needs saving, then during logout the app gets a message, it sees the file needs saving, it asks the user and depending on the answer from the user it either allows the logout to continue or it cancels it. I don't quite see how you'd want to match such behavior to Inhibit(). It could however be handled by the component providing org.fd.PM registering with XSMP and cancelling the logout when inhibited (I think somebody has already suggested this elsewhere in this thread). I'm still not quite sure Inhibit() even belongs to PM interface, I cannot think of a single case when an app would want to block suspend but would not want to block logout, so it'd always have to block both of them. However the SM semantics (at least as they're in XSMP) wouldn't allow blocking PM suspend by blocking SM logout. Not that I have any better idea. > Specifically, as you mention, existing PM > daemons like gnome-power-manager, kpowersave etc. would just provide > both "interfaces" until something better comes along to provide > org.freedesktop.SessionManagement, e.g. for GNOME it . Notably we can > extend this interface later on. Yes. A session management providing merely shutdown/reboot/logout is vastly insufficient and would basically just use the XSMP-provided functionality (plus whatever starts the shutdown/reboot afterwards). I originally suggested the org.fd.ShutdownManagement name because of this but if this is meant to be extended somewhen in the future than I think it can be called org.fd.SessionManagement. > Would this work for everyone? Personally I think this is a lot nicer. Yes, I'm perfectly fine with the org.fd.SM interface. -- Lubos Lunak KDE developer -------------------------------------------------------------- SUSE LINUX, s.r.o. e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] , [EMAIL PROTECTED] Lihovarska 1060/12 tel: +420 284 028 972 190 00 Prague 9 fax: +420 284 028 951 Czech Republic http//www.suse.cz _______________________________________________ xdg mailing list xdg@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg