nanogui: Screensaver?
Subject:
Re: Screensaver?
From:
Nils Faerber ####@####.####
Date:
17 Oct 2000 05:53:37 -0000
Message-Id: <0010170013160D.00680@twincan>
Hi!
Before you read on I should say that I understand your concerns and will remove
the screensaver from the main select loop. It's just that I am currently in the
mood to argue a little ;)
On Mon, 16 Oct 2000, Jordan Crouse wrote:
> Generally, its not a good idea to put something so client oriented in
> the server. The main select statement is there to deliver events,
Why is it so client oriented?
It could as well be a server function that clients can influence.
> be it for solitaire or a screen saver. Plus, you don't want to get to
> the point where you are making server calls for application specific
> concepts. While it is technologically possible, sometimes its better
I still do not see why a screensaver cannot be a server function. Argueing this
way you could also say that graphics output, user input and event handling
should be three different processes.
I see the server as the main screen-handler that is also responsible for
blanking the screen if applicable. No application should do this because the
screensaver affects all applications, i.e. no application is visible anymore
when the screen is blanked.
> not to open up the flood gates, because as soon as you do something like
> that, no matter how innocent you want it to be, you give license to
> every other programmer to put *their* application specific calls in.
For shure true.
And not opening those gates too easily is very wise too. And that's exactly why
I just made a proposal and thus starting a discussion on it. If everyone agrees
that this is application space, fine with me and I'll do a screenblanking
daemon. But if there are reasons to put it into the server those should be
taken into account and be valued against the application space approach.
> A better scheme would be a tiny daemon running in the background
> monitoring the time and watching for mouse/keyboard activity. Because
> Nano-X will allow you to monitor events on *all* windows, this would be
> trivial. After a certain amount of time, you could blank the screen or
> copy it off somewhere else so you can draw stuff (but not a good idea if
> your goal is battery conservation). Then, you could keep watch for
> input, and do the reverse. This gives you many advantages: More
> configurable, more system aware (otherwise, if you want password or
> other protection, you would have to put platform specific info into the
> server, which we do not want). On more capable machines, you can even
> go so far as to have the screen saver modules like X11 does.
AFAIK X11 itself has only one screensaver built into the server. All other
screensavers are applications just mimicrin a screensaver. They grab the root
window and perform what they want to do (drawing eyecandy or lock the screen
for a password entry).
> Basically, thanks to the design of Nano-X (which some Win32 developers
> might grumble about), a client is allowed the opportunity to snoop on
> everybody, thereby giving a way to design a screen saver without having
> to touch the server.
OK. As I said no problem with me, I just want to extend my iPaq's battery life.
Which way the screen is turned off is rather irrelevant for me. But you are
perfectly right with the assumption that an application is much simpler to do
as it can have a window for configuration itself rather than having to add new
API functions to modify for example the timeout.
Hmm... good idea ;) Thanks!
Though I still do not see the point but it offers some new opportunities I did
not yet see. Await a screensaver daemon by the end of next week ;)
> Happy hacking!
Thanks, also!
> Jordan
CU
nils faerber
--
kernel concepts
Engel & Faerber GbR Tel: +49-271-771091-12
Dreisbachstr. 24 Fax: +49-271-771091-19
D-57250 Netphen D1 : +49-170-2729106
--
