[Telepathy] paths for .manager files and other telepathy data?

[Ali Sabil]

Ye I know Who I am :p The name of the msn connection manager is not settled
and was discussed
quickly on irc

On 9/21/06, Robert McQueen <robert.mcqueen at collabora.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Dafydd Harries wrote:
> > It was discussed that the ObjectPath and BusName fields could also be
> omitted,
> > given that they can be inferred knowing only the name of the connection
> > manager, but the discussion didn't get very far. It would mean that the
> > ConnectionManager stanza wouldn't have any fields defined as it stands,
> and
> > would therefore be somewhat useless.
>
> The specification says that *all* connection managers must live under
> org.freedesktop.Telepathy.ConnectionManager.foo, with a similar object
> path. This is so that you can use ListNames or ListActivatableServices
> to immediately know all of the running/available connection managers,
> and interrogate them for information. This does indeed, render the
> BusName/ObjectPath useless.
>
> The alternative is that a) it's somehow wrong to force 3rd party
> connection managers to live in our namespace, and b) that people should
> discover managers only by using .manager files. I think this sucks,
> because a) we already have to give some of our namespace away in order
> that you can do ListNames and discover existing connections and b) the
> manager files are merely a cache and shouldn't be made mandatory. I
> think that run-time discoverability is potentially useful for connection
> managers too, otherwise we may as well discard all of the
> ConnectionManager interface other than the RequestConnection method and
> NewConnection signal.
>
> There is a downside to all of this, which is that we end up squashing
> all connection managers into a small namespace of just a single word.
> It's my hope that this won't be a problem and that we won't end up with
> a proliferation of connection managers, but instead a reasonable number
> which are widely-recognised as the canonical implementations of their
> respective protocols. However, it could always go horribly wrong, and we
> could end up with dozens of connection managers (like G/K/Q/X/# versions
> of each protocol... *shudder*), and there will always be people who name
> their managers unimaginative things like 'msn'[1] and make the namespace
> crowded/confusing. :)
>
> If we want to change how connection managers are discovered, now is the
> time to decide. Run-time discoverability vs allow connection managers to
> live in arbitrary D-Bus namespaces? I think run-time discoverability is
> more important, so we can discard the BusName and ObjectPath fields from
> .manager files. Comments? :)
>
> Regards,
> Rob
>
> [1]: YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE... :P
>
> --
> Robert McQueen
> Director, Collabora Ltd.
> _______________________________________________
> Telepathy mailing list
> Telepathy at lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/telepathy
>



-- 
Ali Sabil
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/telepathy/attachments/20060921/d9beb210/attachment.htm