Re: SystemParametersInfo: Screen Save actions

[Andreas Mohr]

On Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 07:22:39AM -0800, Andriy Palamarchuk wrote:
> Change log:
>
> SystemParametersInfo. Implemented processing for
> actions SPI_GET/SETSCREENSAVETIMEOUT,
> SPI_GET/SETSCREENSAVEACTIVE,
> SPI_GET/SETSCREENSAVERRUNNING. Removed integration
> with X Window screen saving.

Hmm, why did you remove X11 screen saving completely ??

Probably because it was horribly broken, right ?
(SPI_SETSCREENSAVEACTIVE *activated* screen saver instead of *enabling* it
- doh !)

Why don't you fix this strange code instead of removing it ?
I guess I should do it...

SystemParametersInfo: Screen Save actions

[Andriy Palamarchuk]

--- Andreas Mohr  wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 07:22:39AM -0800, Andriy
> Palamarchuk wrote:
> > Change log:
> >
> > SystemParametersInfo. Implemented processing for
> > actions SPI_GET/SETSCREENSAVETIMEOUT,
> > SPI_GET/SETSCREENSAVEACTIVE,
> > SPI_GET/SETSCREENSAVERRUNNING. Removed integration
> > with X Window screen saving.
>
> Hmm, why did you remove X11 screen saving completely
> ??
>
> Probably because it was horribly broken, right ?
> (SPI_SETSCREENSAVEACTIVE *activated* screen saver
> instead of *enabling* it
> - doh !)
>
> Why don't you fix this strange code instead of
> removing it ?

Andreas, I had a discussion with Alexandre how we are
going to integrate system parameters/system metrics
with X settings. The decision we came to was to make 
system parameters independent from X settings by
default. This is why I removed the code, not just
fixed it.
Look at the discussion in a couple of threads on
wine-devel with "SystemParametersInfo ..." in subject.
The summary of the approach is also in comments to
SystemParametersInfoA in windows/sysparams.c
> I guess I should do it...

I assumed that in this case there was no strong reason
for such integration.
I will be glad to get your comments on this situation.

Andriy Palamarchuk

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Find the one for you at Yahoo! Personals
http://personals.yahoo.com

SystemParametersInfo: Screen Save actions

[Francois Gouget]

On Fri, 16 Nov 2001, Andriy Palamarchuk wrote:
> --- Andreas Mohr  wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 07:22:39AM -0800, Andriy
> > Palamarchuk wrote:
> > > Change log:
> > >
> > > SystemParametersInfo. Implemented processing for
> > > actions SPI_GET/SETSCREENSAVETIMEOUT,
> > > SPI_GET/SETSCREENSAVEACTIVE,
> > > SPI_GET/SETSCREENSAVERRUNNING. Removed integration
> > > with X Window screen saving.
> >
> > Hmm, why did you remove X11 screen saving completely
> > ??

[...]
> Andreas, I had a discussion with Alexandre how we are
> going to integrate system parameters/system metrics
> with X settings. The decision we came to was to make 
> system parameters independent from X settings by
> default. This is why I removed the code, not just
> fixed it.
> Look at the discussion in a couple of threads on
> wine-devel with "SystemParametersInfo ..." in subject.
> The summary of the approach is also in comments to
> SystemParametersInfoA in windows/sysparams.c
> > I guess I should do it...
>
> I assumed that in this case there was no strong reason
> for such integration.

I don't know for SETSCREENSAVETIMEOUT but an application would want
to get SETSCREENSAVEACTIVE and SPI_GETSCREENSAVERRUNNING right.

SPI_GET/SETSCREENSAVEACTIVE seems to be typically used by movie
players. Imagine, you start palying a DVD, relax, and every five minutes
the screensaver kicks in. This is why many movie players disable the
screensaver when you start playing the movie and restore its initial
state when the movie is finished. This is the case of mplayer for
instance (and yes, it's a pain if they crash).
   I don't see why we should prevent Windows applications from doing so.
Similarly, SPI_GETSCREENSAVERRUNNING could be used by an application to
stop its slide-show since noone will be able to see it. But actually, it
now occurs to me that it may also be used by distributed-computing
applications to know when to start their computations (for those that
are not screen-savers).
   SPI_SETSCREENSAVERRUNNING seems pure evil though (and according to
the doc applications are not supposed to use it anyway).

In fact, I disagree with Alexandre when he says:
> If users want to reconfigure X behavior, they have to use the X
> configuration programs.

I think Wine is about more than just running Windows applications on
Linux. It's about integrating Windows and Linux applications and thus
they should be able to manipulate these kind of settings. Otherwise Wine
would only support the 'desktop mode' or it would not exist at all and
everyone would be happy with running Windows in a sand-box ala VMWare.

So it may make sense to maintain some parameters separately from the
X settings (especially when their is not corresponding X setting), but I
think the above parameters should be 100% backed by the corresponding X
setting.

--
Francois Gouget         [e-mail]        http://fgouget.free.fr/
  Any sufficiently advanced Operating System is indistinguishable from Linux

SystemParametersInfo: Screen Save actions

[Andriy Palamarchuk]

--- Francois Gouget  wrote:

[...]
> So it may make sense to maintain some parameters
> separately from the
> X settings (especially when their is not
> corresponding X setting), but I
> think the above parameters should be 100% backed by
> the corresponding X
> setting.

I agree for the screensaver system parameters.
I'll enable the integration and resubmit the patch.

Currently my position in implementing
SystemParametersInfo is "integrate with X when we
really need to".

Do you suggest another extreme - "Integrate with X
whenever possible"?
If not, where do you suggest to draw the line between
these two extremes?

I don't see big problems with either of this
approaches - just don't let windows applications screw
X settings permenantly.

Andriy

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Find the one for you at Yahoo! Personals
http://personals.yahoo.com