[Bug 13349] Undraft mail notification spec

bugzilla-daemon at freedesktop.org bugzilla-daemon at freedesktop.org
Mon Apr 19 17:37:05 CEST 2010


https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13349

--- Comment #31 from Nicolas Dufresne <nicolas.dufresne at collabora.co.uk> 2010-04-19 08:37:04 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #30)
> (In reply to comment #29)
> > (In reply to comment #28)
> > > Bug #27167 seems a little subtle
> [...]
> > The solution you proposed (to suspend async
> > calls until dependent calls has complete) is the right solution.
> 
> I've asked for minor (documentation etc.) changes to the branch in Bug #27167,
> but I think the approach is now correct, so this isn't a blocker.

I missed that, sorry, I'll fix soon.

> The Subscribe() and Unsubscribe() methods are rather generically named, and
> collisions with similar methods on other interfaces are likely. In Bug #21787 I
> added an Unsubscribe() method for presence subscriptions, which I think should
> "win" (i.e. be the one that keeps the name) if necessary. So, the question here
> is: do we care about bindings that can't use colliding methods?
> 
> In particular, in dbus-python it's hard, although possible, to implement
> colliding methods - you have to have them in different subclasses, or mixins,
> or something.
> 
> I believe most/all *client* bindings are happy enough to *call* two methods of
> the same name, though?

That is a limitation I did not know before I wrote that API. D-Bus does not
have any limitation in that sense since you always need to specify the
interface name along with the method. But I forgot to consider that most OO
langues simply add interfaces to the instance method table.

Because of that, I agree that generic names must be avoided (in interfaces),
though I don't like the allusion to "win" a name, we should just not use them.

Any suggestion for renaming ?

> 
> (In reply to comment #27)
> > Nicolas pointed out on the bug for the Gabble implementation that the display
> > name in a Mail_Address can be empty. If this is the intention, the spec should
> > explicitly say so, to remind client authors that they might need to fall back
> > to displaying the email address.
> 
> As far as I can see, it still doesn't.

Right. Let me know what you think of
http://git.collabora.co.uk/?p=user/nicolas/telepathy-spec.git;a=commitdiff;h=b320e559ea39dd9824a8b997704b7c36286f1aed;hp=fd72acdad39015aacf84be58174d1a12eb827389

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.



More information about the telepathy-bugs mailing list