On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 08:54 -0500, David Zeuthen wrote: > On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 12:08 +0000, Richard Hughes wrote: > > > Why wouldn't the admin just use the same method? I'm not sure why we > > > need two separate methods. I mean, with a CancelLatencyRequest() and > > > proper user interface the admin can just remove requests that way. > > > > Nahh, the admin interface is "sticky" i.e. the admin can issue the > > request, disconnect and the the setting is persistent across reboots and > > sessions. The user request gets cleaned up on disconnect. > > It sounds somewhat useful that the admin can define such "sticky" > requests.
Yes, I think it's important. > why not just a single one > > RequestLatencyGuarantee(string type, int value, bool is_sticky) > > requiring different polkit authorization depending on whether > is_sticky==TRUE. Yes, that would work too. > As discussed on IRC, I'm going to commit a few changes to make that > easier to achieve, the main one being moving the objects around e.g. / > -> /org/freedesktop/DeviceKit/Power and so forth. This probably means a > small change in gnome-power-manager's devkit-power branch but I think > it's pretty much worth the change. Don't worry about g-p-m just yet -- the devkit branch is proof of concept only. > Anyway, when it comes to configuration files (once we get around to add > this) we need to diligently point out that such a file is just an > implementation detail and that it might go away / change format / change > location. This is actually not far fetched; since this is a > configuration value you really want something like GConf's stacking to > store it, e.g. > > o system-mandatory > o site-mandatory > o org-mandatory > o factory-mandatory > (normally you'd have per-user here but this is a system daemon) > o system-defaults > o site-defaults > o org-defaults > o factory-defaults Wow, sure. I guess. > Of course it's not reasonable to use GConf from a system daemon but one > of these days we'll have things like GSettings/DConf in the glib stack > where it's suitable for system daemons. And then we want to change our > implementation to use that. Then, in some star trek universe many light > years away, the admin might change all the latency requests for the > whole site or organization. I guess it makes sense to tie into FreeIPA or something then. > In particular we need to say that the D-Bus interface should be used to > change these values, editing the config file will never reliably work. Totally agree. > No problemo. Can you upload the new interface when we've got the changes > in? Since it's public API and all, another round of review might be > good. Will do. I'll update things this afternoon. Richard. _______________________________________________ devkit-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/devkit-devel
