reopening the session management discussion...
Brian J. Tarricone
bjt23 at cornell.edu
Wed Aug 27 20:17:30 CEST 2008
Nick Schermer wrote:
> Old discussion was started when I asked for the session support in libxfce4ui:
Thanks for finding that, Nick.
Going back to what Olivier said:
> I beg to disagree, proper session management is important and older
> sessions management ala X11R5 is just crap.
> Removing features is not really a good way to fix them, IMHO.
I think (please correct me if I'm wrong) he was more referring to my
suggestion to not include any session client support in libxfce4ui at
all than to my proposal to ditch SM support in core xfce apps. So maybe
Olivier wasn't totally opposed to removing SM support from xfdesktop.
Thinking back on it, I guess I wouldn't be opposed to SM support in
libxfce4ui, unless we decide that the X11R5 SM support in libexo is good
enough for most apps.
> As for apps being dropped from the session, this could be handled by the
> session manager (making sure that a given set of apps are always
> restored, this is what gnome session does I think).
My previous point here still stands -- the thought of hardcoding our
apps in xfce4-session sounds like a bad idea. Even offering a
configurable list of apps to always keep running sounds like a bad idea.
If we're going to do that, we might as well just implement the respawn
bits of the SM protocol.
> Anyway, if an apps is not saved along with the session, it could be very
> well because the application has quit (or crashed?) and unregistered
> from the session manager before the session get saved?
This was actually the entire motivation for my initial suggestion, so,
yeah, I'm well aware of this.
I'd love to say we can fix all crashers so it's never an issue that apps
fall out of the session, but I'm trying to be realistic here.
More information about the Xfce4-dev