[Bug 71389] replace _mcd_account_needs_dispatch() (aka always_dispatch)

[bugzilla-daemon at freedesktop.org]

https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=71389

--- Comment #3 from John Brooks <john.brooks at jollamobile.com> ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> (In reply to comment #0)
> > * flags the account as OK to connect even when the McdConnectivityMonitor
> >   thinks it shouldn't (suspending, no network, etc.)
> 
> Short-term: replace this with: is the account's protocol "tel"?

This is acceptable, but no cleaner than the always-dispatch flag.

> Long-term: maybe add a flag on Protocol, "doesn't need network connectivity".
> 
> Looking at what McdConnectivity does, we could perhaps combine this with
> flags for "OK to leave connected while suspended", "OK to leave connected
> while networking is in flux", and "OK to leave connected while shutting
> down".

Would this mean that the setting is immutable without modifying the CM itself?
For a simple "needs connectivity" flag that would probably be OK, but for
something more nuanced like "OK to leave connected while suspended", it may
need to be modified on a device or even account level.

(In reply to comment #2)
> (In reply to comment #0)
> > * in mcd_connection_need_dispatch(), if a non-MC client has requested
> >   channels by "going behind MC's back", we would normally only pass them
> >   to Observers, but if the account has always_dispatch, we pass them
> >   to Handlers too (potentially leading to the non-MC client and the Handler
> >   fighting over the channel)
> 
> I believe the original motivation for this was something like: on a phone,
> if an app initiates a call (even if it does it "the wrong way"), it's really
> bad for it not to pop up the big obvious "you're on the phone" UI.
> 
> I suspect that we don't really need this:
> 
> 1) If you want to guarantee that (at least part of) the call UI is present
> for every call, it can just as easily be an Observer, which you might well
> want it to be anyway.
> 
> 2) This is either a guard against malice or incompetence.
> [snip] 
> If it's to guard against incompetent applications, you can either say "fix
> them, then" or use similar strategies.

I agree. That can be removed entirely.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.