> > No, that's not what I mean. You won't see multiple legacyScreenSaver > processes, but you should note that each time you start and stop your > screensaver, you should see the memory and cpu (depending on how much
I see, yes that seems to be the case , at least for the memory part.
Over time, the process uses over 2 GB.
(No CPU, though)
> Using something like those XXXXXXXXXXX will make it easier to filter them in
> Console.app. You should see the starts, but not the stops.
Right. I think I noticed that, too.
But that does not explain, why new settings will not become persistent, does it?
I mean, when I do
[defaults_ setObject: monitor_user_prefs forKey: displayName_];
the Mac *could* write the new settings into persistent memory/disk ...
Or is there a dedicated command that would force macOS to write the settings?
There is the -synchronize method, but the docs say it's not necessary any more.
> because legacyScreenSaver is just weird.
That whole business brings up the question: should we abandon legacyScreenSaver?
If I understand correctly, there is a new framework, something to do with
wallpapers?
I mean, the name "legacyScreenSaver" suggest, that this framework will be going
away anyways at some point ...
What are your thoughts?
Best regards, Gabriel
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Cocoa-dev mailing list (Cocoa-dev@lists.apple.com) Please do not post admin requests or moderator comments to the list. Contact the moderators at cocoa-dev-admins(at)lists.apple.com Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/cocoa-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to arch...@mail-archive.com
