Re: gnome-screensaver, new api calls requested :-)

[William Jon McCann <mccann jhu edu>]

Richard Hughes wrote:
...
> I think g-s is more ready for inclusion into core gnome, and I think
> putting the dpms stuff into g-p-m would make an implicit dep for g-s on
> g-p-m. My view at the moment is that it should stay in g-s.

Is there a chance that g-p-m won't be ready for inclusion in the Desktop 
release?

If g-p-m is in the Desktop then I don't have any problem using it. 
Anyway, for now I'll do the wait and see.

> > Now that you have created gnome-power-manager it seems like it might be 
> > the right home for this.
>
> Heh. I would be fine with dpms control to move to g-p-m, and to provide
> an API for g-s to use (if it needed to?) -- I guess it would make g-s
> more of a "gnome screensaver" daemon rather than an "xscreensaver
> replacement".

No more than it is already, really.  Internally, anyway.  The only 
"external" interfaces to the screensaver are the DBus methods and 
signals and the .desktop files.  Both of which should be desktop neutral 
and should remain so.

OK, well if we don't move power management into g-p-m then I haven't 
answered your original question ;)

I think that adding a setDpmsPower method to the DBus interface will 
break the abstraction pretty badly.  Since the DBus interface will be 
desktop neutral, it should be one that any implementation could use. 
Since it is not a requirement that all screensaver implementations have 
DPMS power setting capabilities, we shouldn't add it to the interface.

However, it sounds like a very useful method for a power manager to have. :)

Jon