[Telepathy] forwarding spec questions

[mikhail.zabaluev at nokia.com]

Hi,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: telepathy-bounces at lists.freedesktop.org [mailto:telepathy-
> bounces at lists.freedesktop.org] On Behalf Of ext Andres Salomon
> Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2010 8:20 PM
> To: telepathy at lists.freedesktop.org
> Cc: Sjoerd Simons
> Subject: [Telepathy] forwarding spec questions
> 
> Regarding http://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13351 (the
> forwarding spec), I'm trying to determine just how much the spec needs
> to support.  The discussion of scripts is much more complex than the
> GSM call-forwarding model.  If that's something that telepathy needs to
> support, what kind of API is envisioned?

For the Connection interface, it's enough if we can do this:

property SupportedForwardingConditions: au, read-only

property ForwardingRules: a(ua(uu))

method SetForwardingRule(u: Forwarding_Condition, a(uu): Forwarding_List) -> a(uu)

signal ForwardingRulesChanged: a(ua(uu))

enum Forwarding_Condition: u {
    Unconditional,
    Busy,
    NoReply,
    NotReachable
}

struct Forwarding_List_Entry {
    u: Timeout,
    u: Handle,
}

The timeout is for how many seconds should the service wait (on the original call, or a previous forwarding attempt) before attempting forwarding to that handle. It can be 0 if the client does not care and lets the implementation decide, and it's reported back as 0 if the service does not advertise definite timeouts (there could be a feature flag property about that, too).

I'm not certain of how the conditional rules should supplement each other. Should NoReply also work if the subscriber is not reachable and the rule for NotReachable is not set? Or vice versa? Will anything supplement Busy? Or should it be at the discretion of the connection manager, which will be obliged to advertise all effective rules as apply to each condition?

-- 
  Mikhail