Re: Panel GUI

[Jim Pick <jim jimpick com>]

Tom Tromey <tromey@creche.cygnus.com> writes:

> >> Someone pointed out to me that the name "gsm" is already in use.
> >> I've been thinking of renaming it to "gnome" or "gnome-session".
> >> The idea behind the former is that if the session manager really is
> >> how Gnome should be started, then it should be named accordingly.
> 
> Jim> I think "gnomesm" would be better.  Session management ought to
> Jim> be optional.
> 
> I don't necessarily disagree, but I'd like to know why you think this.
> What if the SM had a way to turn off its session management functions?
> Then you'd just be left with a handy way to log out.

I just don't think we ought to force people to change their existing
X environments (ie. window manager, session manager) in order to run
Gnome apps.  If there is no session manager running, the Gnome apps
should still work.

That said, have support for "Gnome-smart" window managers and session
managers can't hurt.

Maybe there should be a "Session" submenu, with Log out, Save (Checkpoint),
New Session, Edit Sessions, Switch Session, etc.

Forgive me, but I just figured out how xsm and session management in
general works.  I'd only encountered it sporadically in the past.

With the container scheme - it seems to me that only the top level
containers ought to save their state in the session, and they should
be responsible for saving the state of the apps that are embedded
in them.  Of course, any app should be able to run standalone, so
session management support should be in all of them.

Am I also correct in assuming that gsm will have no GUI associated
with it?  It will just export some CORBA methods so that any app
can do session management stuff like switch sessions, close down,
etc. via CORBA calls?

Cheers,

 - Jim

PGP signature