[Telepathy] Mission Control Spec
tobias at aquazul.com
Thu Nov 2 06:35:56 PST 2006
On Thursday 02 November 2006 00:33, Raphaël Slinckx wrote:
> Good night !
> I sense excitement through my powerful telepathy skills. I also
> perceive it's because I just finished the Mission Control API Spec
> proposal !
First I want to thank you for taking the time to write such a proposal. I do
have a couple of issues with it though that I would like to address:
The first thing is that you do not mention Connection Manager/profile
management at all. In my understanding that is one of the three central
aspects of a mission control component (with the others being account
management and componet startup). Will you still add such a part at some
I found you mentioning profile management here and was a bit confused by that.
Maybe you could work over the wording a bit to make it clearer how profile
management relates to account management?
I further do not see the need of a changed flag. The GUI should be able to
figure out which accounts it changed pretty well without the help of the
The fixed string to identify an account is a nice idea, but I would prefer
using a handle here: It is shorter, faster to compare and more consistent
with the rest of telepathy. You already propose to have a "Name" (which I
would personally change to "display-name" to make its purpose more clear)
later on which can be set by the user. That is what most UIs will use to
describe the account to the user, so I see no need for a human-readable ID,
I do not see why you need a enable/disabled state. In Houston all the accounts
stored in the AccountManager are what you call enabled. An account
configuration application can always back up the data from some accounts and
store it someplace on the filesystem to simulate your proposed disabled
state. In my opinion this is nothing a MC component needs to be concerned
about. We should keep things as simple and flexible as possible.
Editing account settings is something you should not leave out of your API
though! This is a pretty central aspect of the whole account management after
all and has a great impact on being able to use account configuration
applications from one MC on another.
I do not understand why you are trying to add contacts to accounts (maybe my
understanding of that problem space is just lacking). I am trying to keep the
concepts of contact and account as separate as possible in Decibel and am
trying to push contact handling out of Houston itself. I have to admit that I
am so far not sure whether this works out the way I hope it will;-)
Synchronising personal data, presence and connection status across accounts:
Sorry, I do not think that is a good thing to enforce in a central policy
daemon. I often want to stay online with one account and not with another or
have a pseudonym on one account and my real name on an other, etc. I do not
want that data to by in sync at all times.
I prefer having a interface to modify *one* account at a time in Decibel's
Houston. A client application can then do the synchronisation business if the
user wants that... much more flexible this way.
This part is OK with me, but the chandler files seem much to coarse grained
for my taste and to inflexible. Users will want to configure this, having to
change around files in some system directory is nothing anyone will want to
Stuff outside of Raf's proposal:
Some part that is sadly not addressed by telepathy so far and would be really
nice to have in a mission control component is an option to get a description
of capabilities of a Connection Manager: This CM does support encryption (or
does not), etc. Currently there is just no algorithmic way to find a good CM
to try for a connection request: Basically the programmer has to know which
capabilities a CM has. That is very unsatisfactory: It would be much nicer if
the CMs would describe their capabilities, so that a mission control
component can pick the "right" CM for a connection.
I know that this whether a encrypted connection is possible depends on more
than just our CM, but it does not make sense to try for something that the CM
at our end can not do. Why should I try CM X to eg. transfer a file to
someone else if X can not transfer files? If CM Y can do so, then I should
try that one so that I can report to the user "It is the servers fault" when
the transfer is not possible;-)
How about adding a capabilities interface to the CMs?
I hope I was not destructive with my criticism. It is great that somebody is
working on such an important add-on to telepathy! Please keep up your work.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/telepathy/attachments/20061102/5a1c8127/attachment.pgp
More information about the Telepathy