Ye I know Who I am :p The name of the msn connection manager is not settled and was discussed quickly on irc <div>On 9/21/06, Robert McQueen <<a href="mailto:robert.mcqueen@collabora.co.uk"> robert.mcqueen@collabora.co.uk</a>> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Dafydd Harries wrote: > It was discussed that the ObjectPath and BusName fields could also be omitted, > given that they can be inferred knowing only the name of the connection > manager, but the discussion didn't get very far. It would mean that the > ConnectionManager stanza wouldn't have any fields defined as it stands, and > would therefore be somewhat useless. The specification says that *all* connection managers must live under org.freedesktop.Telepathy.ConnectionManager.foo, with a similar object path. This is so that you can use ListNames or ListActivatableServices to immediately know all of the running/available connection managers, and interrogate them for information. This does indeed, render the BusName/ObjectPath useless. The alternative is that a) it's somehow wrong to force 3rd party connection managers to live in our namespace, and b) that people should discover managers only by using .manager files. I think this sucks, because a) we already have to give some of our namespace away in order that you can do ListNames and discover existing connections and b) the manager files are merely a cache and shouldn't be made mandatory. I think that run-time discoverability is potentially useful for connection managers too, otherwise we may as well discard all of the ConnectionManager interface other than the RequestConnection method and NewConnection signal. There is a downside to all of this, which is that we end up squashing all connection managers into a small namespace of just a single word. It's my hope that this won't be a problem and that we won't end up with a proliferation of connection managers, but instead a reasonable number which are widely-recognised as the canonical implementations of their respective protocols. However, it could always go horribly wrong, and we could end up with dozens of connection managers (like G/K/Q/X/# versions of each protocol... *shudder*), and there will always be people who name their managers unimaginative things like 'msn'[1] and make the namespace crowded/confusing. :) If we want to change how connection managers are discovered, now is the time to decide. Run-time discoverability vs allow connection managers to live in arbitrary D-Bus namespaces? I think run-time discoverability is more important, so we can discard the BusName and ObjectPath fields from .manager files. Comments? :) Regards, Rob [1]: YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE... :P -- Robert McQueen Director, Collabora Ltd. _______________________________________________ Telepathy mailing list <a href="mailto:Telepathy@lists.freedesktop.org">Telepathy@lists.freedesktop.org</a> <a href="http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/telepathy">http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/telepathy</a> </blockquote></div> -- Ali Sabil