From owner-freebsd-hackers  Mon Nov  2 19:01:28 1998
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA26298
          for freebsd-hackers-outgoing; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 19:01:28 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG)
Received: from outmail.utsunomiya-u.ac.jp (outmail.utsunomiya-u.ac.jp [160.12.196.3])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA26290
          for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 19:01:25 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from yokota@zodiac.mech.utsunomiya-u.ac.jp)
Received: from zodiac.mech.utsunomiya-u.ac.jp (IDENT:isIhNCTKZm2g1tmphW13tSUe1hD66kFj@zodiac.mech.utsunomiya-u.ac.jp [160.12.42.1])
	by outmail.utsunomiya-u.ac.jp (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA32263;
	Tue, 3 Nov 1998 12:01:12 +0900 (JST)
Received: from zodiac.mech.utsunomiya-u.ac.jp (zodiac.mech.utsunomiya-u.ac.jp [160.12.42.1]) by zodiac.mech.utsunomiya-u.ac.jp (8.7.6+2.6Wbeta7/3.4W/zodiac-May96) with ESMTP
	id MAA01789; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 12:02:37 +0900 (JST)
Message-Id: <199811030302.MAA01789@zodiac.mech.utsunomiya-u.ac.jp>
To: Mikael Karpberg <karpen@ocean.campus.luth.se>
cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, yokota@zodiac.mech.utsunomiya-u.ac.jp
Subject: Re: kld screensavers 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 01 Nov 1998 14:13:36 +0100."
             <199811011313.OAA21309@ocean.campus.luth.se> 
References: <199811011313.OAA21309@ocean.campus.luth.se> 
Date: Tue, 03 Nov 1998 12:02:37 +0900
From: Kazutaka YOKOTA <yokota@zodiac.mech.utsunomiya-u.ac.jp>
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG


>According to Doug Rabson:
>> Thats more or less what I was suggesting.  Simple screen savers wouldn't
>> even need an event handler.  Maybe something like:
>[suggestion removed]
>
>While this is being discussed, I'd like to bring something up that I've
>wanted for a long time, and brought up before. Why not make to so that
>each screensaver register itself with a timeout, a priority and a flag
>that says if it's fallthrough or not? That way you can have multiple
>screensavers installed, and they get called as approriate.
>
>I haven't looked at the current code, I'm affraid, so go easy on me.
>Example:
>
>Three screensavers:  (say default prio is 5)
>
>lock:     prio 1, 10 minutes, fallthrough  (Demands password to release screen
>)
>green:    prio 4, 20 minutes               (Turn screen off)
>stars:    prio 5, 5 minutes                (Twinkle, twinkle, little star)
[...]

I am not sure if we want to have this kind of screen saver stack.  It
will complicate things a lot: multiple saver module management,
priority management, flag checking...  Is this worth the effort?

If you want to lock the vty with password, you can always use
`lock(1)'.  And it is easy to modify screen savers, `start' or
whatever, and add them the ability to turn off the display after set
period (the screen saver can check system time when it is called
periodically); it will be far easier than implementing the screen
saver stack thingy.

Just my two cents.

Kazu


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message