Hi Bastein, On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 4:27 PM, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi, > > > On 11/02/2013 05:50 PM, Fedor Lyakhov wrote: >> >> Bastein, Hans, >> >> We need an agreement on this topic so I can implement something - and >> have it accepted in both Spice and Gnome eventually. >> >> There are 2 possible approaches conflicting here: >> (i) (spice-proposed) DEs to export API for toggling effects >> (preferable inhibitor-styled). Spice to actively use this API as it >> sees fit. >> (ii) (gnome-proposed) Spice to export API about its internal state, >> DEs to recognize Spice and use that API as they want (e.g. disable >> effects). >> >> Both approaches can work, and second one seems to be easier to >> implement for Spice/Gnome stack. >> Main arguments pro (i): >> 1. It seems right for Spice to be in an active position, deciding what >> to do. DEs are merely environments providing APIs and means for >> applications to achieve their goals. >> 2. Spice aims to support many DEs, not only Gnome (mainly under >> freedesktop, ofc). Making other DEs to recognize Spice usage and >> implement appropriate logic seems to be incorrect approach, which may >> be not acceptable from their PoV. >> >> To address Bastein's concern about new inhibitors: we want them to be >> system ones, similar to existing idle and other inhibitors. Not >> something in the user space of Spice. They should be useful for other >> remoting applications like VNC, and maybe some other apps (cannot >> think up other real use cases right now). > > > Either way works for me, with a slight preferences for having inhibitors. > > Regards, > > Hans Bastein, how much are you against Spice-proposed approach? If I can reduce your concerns, I'm willing to do so... -- Best regards, Fedor _______________________________________________ Spice-devel mailing list Spice-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel