Re: Session saving & 2.26.0

[Matthias Clasen <matthias clasen gmail com>]

On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 11:02 AM, Vincent Untz <vuntz gnome org> wrote:
> Le mercredi 25 mars 2009, à 09:47 -0400, Matthias Clasen a écrit :
>> On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 8:35 AM, Vincent Untz <vuntz gnome org> wrote:
>> > We could say that it's useless to support cancelling both via the
>> > inhibit dialog and via the clients interaction dialogs (this would of
>> > course ignore the fact that we don't control if apps are displaying a
>> > button to cancel logout -- ie, XSMP compatibility).
>>
>> It is a big difference if you allow a user to cancel the logout or if
>> you let a random misbehaving client block logout. If you read Jons
>> design at http://live.gnome.org/SessionManagement/GnomeSession it has
>> a single sentence that is marked in bold (presumably because it is an
>> important part of the design):
>>
>>     It should be stressed that, even when not forced, *clients should
>> not assume that
>>     they will have the ability to block logout or shutdown*.
>>
>> You just broke this by giving clients that ability back.
>
> "clients should not assume that they will have the ability..." is
> different from "clients should assume they will not have the ability...".
> I think this change is perfectly compatible with the design. And FWIW,
> I'd also point out the design doesn't have to be set in stone forever if
> we disagree with it.
>
> Re the random misbehaving client blocking logout: first, I've yet to see
> one. And you're basically proposing to review all working XSMP clients
> to make sure they don't try to cancel logging out (because, well, if you
> don't review them, you'll lose data by ignoring this flag they return)
> instead of fixing the non-working XSMP clients. This is not how I think
> things should be handled.

Just because there is a cancel button in gedit does not mean we have
to stick to a broken design forever.

I think the basic disagreement here is that you think that the
traditional (pre gnome-session rewrite) state of session support is
something thatwas working well and is worth preserving and
re-establishing, while Jon and I don't think it is.