From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Nov 11 17:23:19 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA02484 for freebsd-hackers-outgoing; Wed, 11 Nov 1998 17:23:19 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from roma.coe.ufrj.br (roma.coe.ufrj.br [146.164.53.65]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA02479 for ; Wed, 11 Nov 1998 17:23:16 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jonny@jonny.eng.br) Received: (from jonny@localhost) by roma.coe.ufrj.br (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA20599; Wed, 11 Nov 1998 23:22:35 -0200 (EDT) (envelope-from jonny) From: Joao Carlos Mendes Luis Message-Id: <199811120122.XAA20599@roma.coe.ufrj.br> Subject: Re: kld screensavers In-Reply-To: <199811030302.MAA01789@zodiac.mech.utsunomiya-u.ac.jp> from Kazutaka YOKOTA at "Nov 3, 98 12:02:37 pm" To: yokota@zodiac.mech.utsunomiya-u.ac.jp (Kazutaka YOKOTA) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 23:22:35 -0200 (EDT) Cc: karpen@ocean.campus.luth.se, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, yokota@zodiac.mech.utsunomiya-u.ac.jp X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL40 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG #define quoting(Kazutaka YOKOTA) // >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? I would be happy enough with the green saver included as a second timer (configurable by vidcontrol, off course) in every other saver. It must be easy to do. Say: 5 minutes -> activate the daemon saver more 5 minutes -> green power off Maybe this should be extended to deal with the different green levels: blank, snooze, power off, etc. I don't know green enough to discuss this. BTW: Talking about decoupling video driver, the screen saver drawing functions are decoupled from the video driver (assuming the last propositions I've heard in this list), but the green shutdown would be a internal function of the display device should it be a monitor, a serial port, or even a printer, although green would probably mean nothing on the laters. Jonny -- Joao Carlos Mendes Luis M.Sc. Student jonny@jonny.eng.br Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro "This .sig is not meant to be politically correct." To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message