[Bug 24908] Communication policy (blocking policy) API

[bugzilla-daemon at freedesktop.org]

https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=24908

--- Comment #11 from Simon McVittie <simon.mcvittie at collabora.co.uk> 2010-07-19 10:54:39 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> It does seem a shame to define a pair of new types which are basically
> extensions of Rich_Presence_Access_Control and
> Rich_Presence_Access_Control_Type...

I'd like to veto the addition of things that are this similar to RPAC/RPACT,
but not identical.

My inclination would be to just use RPAC/RPACT (adding entries as needed), and
ignore the slightly incorrect naming.

Alternatively, we could rename RPAC/RPACT, and put compatibility hacks in
telepathy-glib and telepathy-qt4. I think telepathy-glib can be made compatible
with a few #defines, but telepathy-qt4 would need a compatibility typedef?

Another alternative is to keep RPAC/RPACT in the spec, documented as "the same
as AC/ACT, for backwards compatibility only", and ensure that the two are kept
exactly in sync.

In any case, it's probably premature to add any extra entries that we don't
have a concrete use-case for, apart from Not_Understood and perhaps Closed.
Some of the ones I suggested in Comment #5 come from Skype features; Mikhail
Zabaluev might be able to tell us which ones are needed there.

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