[Telepathy] Change proposal to Connection.Interface.Capabilities

[Olli Salli]

Hi,

these all are very good points. I'm all for changing "reasonably everything"
to the "Caps model" - that is, to signatures which are as easy to implement
as possible. As far as I can see, this wouldn't compromise
correctness much in most cases.

Your opinions on this issue are greatly appreciated.

Br,
Olli Salli
Collabora Ltd

On 9/20/06, Daniel d'Andrada Tenório de Carvalho <
daniel.carvalho at indt.org.br> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> First of all, thanks for your attention, Olli.
>
> I agree with you when it comes to ease of implementation. It's a pain to
> handle complex D-Bus signatures in C, for instance. What I'm trying to
> do with that change proposal is to make Telepathy a little more
> consistent, more coherent.
>
> What are we standing for? Simple signatures compromising correctness to
> favor ease of implementation or the opposite instead? Because,
> currently, Telepathy stands for both of them (or none, depending on your
> point of view).
>
> Connection.Interface.Capabilities interface seems to be on the "ease of
> use" side. But let's take a look at, for instance, PresenceUpdate signal
> from Connection.Interface.Presence interface. It has this intimidating
> (or beautiful) signature:
>
> a{u(ua{sa{sv}})}
>
> This is clearly not easy to construct, handle or iterate over. If we
> were to favor the "ease of use" side, this signature should be
> simplified (following the Capabilities interface style) to:
>
> a(uusa{sv})
>
> So, Connection.Interface.Capabilities is on the "ease of use" side and
> Connection.Interface.Presence is on the "correctness" side.
>
> What side are we taking?
>
> Hope you guys take some time to think over it.
>
> Regards,
> Daniel d'Andrada T. de Carvalho - INdT
>
> ext Olli Salli wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm afraid I don't see much benefit in the change. It just makes the
> > signals harder to construct and iterate. However, some clarification
> > to the spec could be added regarding the issue, if it's misleading.
> >
> > Br,
> > Olli Salli
> >
> > On 9/18/06, *Daniel d'Andrada Tenório de Carvalho*
> > <daniel.carvalho at indt.org.br <mailto:daniel.carvalho at indt.org.br>>
> wrote:
> >
> >     Hi everyone,
> >
> >     The some method signatures of the current
> >     Connection.Interface.Capabilities are looking somewhat crude.
> >
> >     They currently use a tuple (contact_handle, channel_type,
> >     type_generic_flags, type_specific_flags).
> >
> >     I'm proposing using (contact_handle, array(channel_type,
> >     type_generic_flags, type_specific_flags))
> >     since each handle may advertise several channel types.
> >
> >     The current specification "just works", of course, but its
> simplistic
> >     approach can be an issue (e.g. misleading).
> >
> >     Attached to this e-mail is a patch to solve that.
> >
> >     Regards,
> >     Daniel d'Andrada T. de Carvalho - INdT
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/telepathy/attachments/20060920/b9be0ee3/attachment.html