Re: [gpm] Re: Gnome 2.16 Module Proposal: GNOME Power Manager

[Richard Hughes <hughsient gmail com>]

On Mon, 2006-04-10 at 18:02 +0200, Holger Macht wrote:
> No, KDE people are definitely not pleased with their current
> implementation. They still use klaptop by default which is nearly
> completely unmaintained.
> 
> Maybe Richard never heard KDE guys saiing that they want a cross desktop
> daemon, but some of them do. For me personally, it's simply a some kind of
> good software design to share common code and interfaces. And I repeated
> myswlf already too often.

As too have I. I really don't see why we need to add *another* layer of
abstraction just so desktops can standardise on 10% for a battery
critical low notification.

The differences between GNOME and KDE in configuration, language,
politics, HIG and loads of other stuff makes cross platform API choices
very difficult.

> Hal is an '_H_ardware _A_bstraction _L_ayer' and
> _no_ power management daemon. Hal should provide device information like
> battery information and nothing more.

But that's what it does.

It provides information such as battery.charge_level.percentage and
methods such as Suspend() and Hibernate(), anything else is out of the
scope of HAL.

<snip some other stuff>

> Richard, please think about your current opinion and maybe try to help to
> get a good solution for the GNOME desktop which usees one common backend.

gnome-power-manager is a 400k binary. It uses gconf to store a few
daemon settings and preferences.

HAL does all the heavy lifting doing all the quirks and talking to stuff
in /proc and /sys.

g-p-m is like the cherry on the cake, small and simple.

It really doesn't do much more than:

"If battery charge < 10% then notify the user"
"If battery charge < 5% then suspend if HAL thinks we can"

I really don't see what the big issue is.

Richard.