[Bug 26417] GetPendingMessageContent() cannot work

[bugzilla-daemon at freedesktop.org]

https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=26417

--- Comment #8 from Mikhail Zabaluev <mikhail.zabaluev at nokia.com> 2010-05-14 06:01:59 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> > I actually kind of think that maybe storing things on disk and passing paths
> > around might not be so bad.
> 
> [punting] For file transfer, too? At least some protocol stacks expect us to
> give them file paths.

This, along with some proprietary development, leads me to think that passing
URIs may be even better.

I can see the following benefits of this:

 * Modern Unix-based platforms already have flexible network I/O frameworks
that work with URIs. Glib-based implementations can use gvfs.
 * CMs, and maybe other parties, can declare which URI schemes do they
understand.
 * Simple CMs could cache received data as temporary files.
 * Implementations of less-than-ordinary protocols could pass custom URIs, and
install URI plugins into the system to handle these.
 * URI plugins for gvfs or similar platform framework could provide caching (do
they now?), so multiple clients don't end up retrieving same content over the
network more than once.
 * (brainstorming) There could be a "spool" URI scheme for abstracted storage
of transient content.

Disadvantages:

 * For some protocols, the implementation has to be spread between Telepathy
and the network I/O framework that handles URIs.
 * If files are to be used, the rules of path selection are not clear (for
instance, is it safe to assume that the usual tmpdir convention produces paths
accessible to all local clients? XDG to the rescue?).
 * The security model and its relation to the D-bus is not clear at all.

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