Re: Regarding the session manager

[Fredrik Jonsson <fjo nada kth se>]

On Thu, 21 Aug 2003, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> I would say gnome-settings-daemon should be handled much like other
> essential processes (window manager, panel).  They should have an SM
> property indicating their type, and the SM should force one panel, one
> file manager, one window manager, one settings daemon, etc. to be
> running at all times; it should also be sure it starts things up in
> the right order (settings daemon, then WM, then file manager, then
> panel, I would say). If the user doesn't have one of these categories
> in their session, the SM should put the default one back into the
> session. There can be an override preference of some kind (an
> allow_no_window_manager=true setting or something) for people who
> really know what they are doing.

Ok, this is pretty much along the lines I'm thinking too.
Currently the settings-daemon doesn't support session 
management at all I believe, but it would be better to make  
a more general solution for the essential apps.

> See this mail if you haven't:
>   http://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2003-April/msg00090.html
> 
> I think the TODO file for msm is pretty accurate, if you fixed the
> stuff in there for msm you should have a usable SM.

Yes, I've seen it. What I've done now is not really based on
msm, but the general design is quite similar, I've knicked
some code and experiences from it (particularly the
ice-connection handling stuff as mentioned) and will grab
more.  This also means that it is missing some features
already implemented in msm and one can argue wether it's
clever to reinvent wheels, but I need to hack around a bit
to get some experience of the problems involved.

Ok, I'm encouraged, let me spend a week or two cleaning 
things up a bit.

Regards,

	/Fredrik

-
Fredrik Jönsson             
Manager, Systems Staff      fjo nada kth se
KTH/Nada/Systemgruppen      +46 8 790 91 35