Re: g-s-d and SM

[Havoc Pennington <hp redhat com>]

jacob berkman <jacob ximian com> writes: 
> no, just poorly communicated.
> 
> "add something to tell the g-s-d where the SM is" maybe?
> 
> basically tell it what's in $SESSION_MANAGER.

Why isn't it getting SESSION_MANAGER the same way everything else is?
 
> > 
> > >         2.  have gnome-session start g-s-d via bonobo-activation and
> > >         remove it from the session
> > 
> > I might vote for this one.
> 
> yeah this seems more fool-proof, except that we don't get the
> restart-on-exit feature of having it be in the SM.  and i'm not sure how
> to fix this?  an n-second timer which tries to make sure it's
> active?

This one creates the problem of when/how does g-s-d shut down. I guess
it's tied to the X server lifecycle though so it would be OK.
  
> i'd almost want to have something run after login to check that
> nautilus, the panel, etc. are running...

I think the way to go here is to have a session property which is a
list of strings describing "roles" a program can fill, and the session
manager should complain on startup if you're missing one of the roles,
and should have some default role-fillers it can start. There could be
an obscure config option to get the SM to shut up if you don't want to
run some role.

But, GNOME has always needed this and never had it (over the last many
years) so it can probably wait for 2.2.

The way the roles work is that the panel would set the role "PANEL"
and Nautilus might set "FILE_MANAGER" and "DESKTOP", for example.
Well, it's unclear it's bad to exit the file manager so maybe that one
wouldn't be set.

Havoc