[Telepathy] Mission Control Spec
sjoerd at luon.net
Thu Nov 2 03:59:37 PST 2006
On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 12:33:19AM +0100, Raphaël Slinckx wrote:
> Good night !
> I sense excitement through my powerful telepathy skills. I also
> perceive it's because I just finished the Mission Control API Spec
> proposal !
> This opens the discussion about specific details rather than the 'big
> picture' as it incorporates most of the email exchange's remarks that
> were raised a couple of weeks ago.
From the wiki page:
GetAccounts() -> [(s:id, s:profile, s:name, s:account)]
Why the account name? Isn't the name the user gave the account enough? For
telepathy-salut (xep-0174 implementation), there even isn't such a thing as an
account. I can imagine that an implementation of an SMS CM also wouldn't have
an account. (Looking at the tp-blue source, that apparently just uses the
account parameter to create the bus name)
> Beside seeking a general review by everyone involved and an official
> blessing for the whole document, here are some more specific bits I
> left out because i don't feel confortable with them:
> 4. Requesting channels API:
> RequestChannelWithAccount(s:chan_type, u:handle_type, s:name,
> s:account) -> void
> Does this one sounds sane. It's a very simple API to use for apps
> that know the type, name and account to invoke a channel on, and
> don't care about the underlying details.
Same comment as above. You can't really assume a CM actually has an account.
Otoh, you might say that using CM's without an account is more specialized and
not the purpose of this API..
Another issue is that an account name doesn't have to be unique for a
connection/protocol. Might even cause some weird issue if i've got the same
account name on two protocols, but the name refers to different persons
depending on the protocol.
Living in the complex world of the future is somewhat like having bees
live in your head. But, there they are.
More information about the Telepathy