Re: [Utopia] RE: Gnome Volume Mgr ==> Gnome Hardware Mgr ??

[Richard Hughes <hughsient gmail com>]

On Tue, 2005-10-18 at 14:22 -0400, Robert Love wrote:
> > After thinking more about the direction of g-p-m, I think that the
> > project is still very young, and is probably best not to merge into
> > g-h-m at the moment... but I do think it's maybe a good thing in the
> > long term for the "common desktop experience"
> > 
> > What's everyones current ideas and thinking on this?
> 
> I see absolutely no reason to have two daemons that both manage hardware
> and respond to HAL events.
> 
> I also think G-P-M is a lot of code for what it currently does.

Yes I agree with this. There are lots of files, but then g-p-m does lots
of stuff (one file per logical functionality), so for example we have
one file gpm-screensaver.{c|h} which *just* has the functions that talk
to gnome screensaver over dbus. The actual LOC isn't that high when you
take out all the fluff (and comments). In the glib-hal-extras.c type
files you can see some clever stuff that is required to access hal, e.g.
SetLCDBrightness () which would have to stay.

Is there any stuff you think is not required or over-engineered? I would
be happy to change pretty much anything.

Richard.