[Telepathy] Some FileTransfer spec comments

Guillaume Desmottes guillaume.desmottes at collabora.co.uk
Thu Nov 6 03:01:34 PST 2008

Le lundi 03 novembre 2008 à 15:46 +0000, Guillaume Desmottes a écrit :
> - This socket approach could be problematic in some CM. For example,
> libpurple's FT API only use file path.
> Maybe we should have move current AcceptFile, OfferFile and
> AvailableSocketTypes to a FileTransfer.Socket interface and have a
> FileTransfer.FilePath (or similar) interface implementing Accept/Offer
> using path. The rest of the current FT channel type will stay common I
> think.

As our "let's pretend we have Local_File socket type" approach failed,
we need to consider other options, including:

A) Create a FileTransferSocket channel type containing AcceptFile,
ProvideFile and AvailableSocketTypes.
Create a FileTransferLocalFile channel type containing AcceptFile(v:
path), ProvideFile(v: path). Where the path is either a string or an
array of bytes (as previously).
Move all the common members to a FileTransfer interface that would be
implemented by both type of transfer.

B) Add a LocalFile interface that could be implemented on the current FT
channel type. {Accept,Provide}File would raise an error if the transfer
by socket is not implemented.

C) ?

I think I'd vote for A). This solution is more natural and elegant than
B which seems to be a hack on top of our current implementation.
Furthermore, it would be very easy for clients to discover which kind of
transfers are implemented by looking at the ChannelType in 


More information about the Telepathy mailing list