GNOME Bugzilla – Bug 577661
Gnome screen saver doesn't user org.freedesktop.ScreenSaver
Last modified: 2011-03-06 07:05:03 UTC
I'm wondering why the gnome screen saver doesn't use the name org.freedesktop.ScreenSaver, probably in parallel with org.Gnome.ScreenSaver, as i know this name is a freedesktop standard, and it makes life more easier for movies players to check/inhibit one screen saver name on the session bus. Other information:
Actually, it is not a freedesktop standard. Furthermore, in GNOME the inhibit has been moved to the session interface.
So if i'm using gnome screen saver, say on Xfce desktop i'll not be able to inhibit the screen saver! I was told that this name is standard, and that's why is used in KDE screensaver, but seems to be not the case which makes like more harder for one who wants to inhibit or catch inhibition sent by movie players for examples.
Sure it would be nice to standardize I guess. In fact I was the one who proposed it as a standard a while ago. However, we didn't come to an agreement on the API, as I recall. Also consider that in GNOME we've moved the inhibit API to the SessionManager interface. One of the reasons for this is that I think we can make a better cross desktop/platform inferface this way.
(In reply to comment #3) > Sure it would be nice to standardize I guess. In fact I was the one who > proposed it as a standard a while ago. However, we didn't come to an agreement > on the API, as I recall. > Yes please, it is nice to have, the name org.gnome.ScreenSaver in parallel with the name org.freedesktop.ScreenSaver, nothing should change. > Also consider that in GNOME we've moved the inhibit API to the SessionManager > interface. One of the reasons for this is that I think we can make a better > cross desktop/platform inferface this way. > Yes this is okay if the user is using all the Gnome desktop applications together, but it is not if i'm using gnome screensaver of gnome power manager and i want to inhibit them, by the way what if i try to set inhibition on the gnome screensaver with on a xfce destktop using. dbus-send --print-reply --session --dest=org.gnome.ScreenSaver /org/gnome/ScreenSaver org.gnome.ScreenSaver.Inhibit string:"test" string:"test" I receive back a cookie, which should not be the case right, an error should raise here because the screensaver is not inhibited. Also why the screen saver doesn't provide a dbus signal of HasInhibitChanged like gnome power manager do?
The inhibit API has moved to the Session interface. I don't really expect there to be much worth sharing in the Screensaver interface, going forward. I'm going to mark this won't fix.