On Wednesday 18 February 2009 09:20:32 George Goldberg wrote: > Since there have been no responses to this thread for a week now, I'm > going to assume that there is nothing more that needs adding to whats > been said - if there is, please do speak up! > > > On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 6:41 PM, George Goldberg > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > 3) Decibel chooses which Contact Manager to use to open a connection > > when connecting one of your accounts. e.g. it allows any jabber > > connection manager that is installed to be used to connect my jabber > > account: [email protected]. > > I've been thinking about this feature a bit, and it seems to me that, > although the idea behind it is nice, in practice it is not possible, > simply because there is no standard or consitent approach to naming > the parameters that a connection manager accepts, so an account > created originally with parameters for one connection manager may not > work with another, and may even behave unpredictably with an other if > they use the same parameter name for a parameter with a different > function. Since the Decibel daemon cannot have any knowledge of what > parameters mean on different connection managers, I think that it is > best to drop this feature. > > To illustrate this problem, compare the parameters for haze, protocol > local-xmpp and salut. > Both are doing the same protocol - local xmpp. > > Haze parameters: > account (required) > first-name (required) > last-name (required) > email > AIM > jid > > Salut parameters: > nickname > first-name (required) > last-name (required) > jid > email > published-name > > As can be seen, although they have the two name parameters in common, > haze has an extra required parameter, "account" which is not present > on salut. What should happen if an account created for salut tries to > connect with haze and can't because of a missing required parameter? > All the parameters that might be required can't be known at the > account creation stage because that would require knowing every > possible connection manager, both present and future, and what > parameters it requires. > > So, in summary, I think it would be a *lot* simpler just to drop this > piece of functionality altogether. It is a lot of trouble to make work > and I don't think it is useful enough to warrant these problems. > > How does everyone else feel about this? > >
That's fine by me. -- Matt _______________________________________________ Decibel mailing list [email protected] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/decibel
