On 11/10/13 10:25, Ross Burton wrote: > On 11 October 2013 10:21, David Woodhouse <dw...@infradead.org > <mailto:dw...@infradead.org>> wrote: > > > Why stop at IRC? Given that the engine is Telepathy, we could use it > > for named rooms on any protocol, like XMPP MUCs for instance. Is there > > some limitation somewhere that makes it only suitable for IRC? > > So this would be a replacement for Empathy? > > Or be a better alternative to Empathy for rooms, leaving Empathy (or > eventually, Contacts + Shell, I guess) for IM.
In the past, various people have talked about cutting the "named chatroom" UI out of Empathy and replacing it with something based on the xchat-gnome UI. This seems broadly similar - it's new code rather than xchat-gnome, but the principle of "have a UI designed for a particular purpose" seems similar. For completeness, I should point out that because IM protocols are annoyingly varied, Telepathy has four types of Text channel, which are sufficiently different at the protocol level that we distinguish between them on D-Bus. I list them here in the hope that the developers of GNOME Telepathy UIs can make an informed decision about their UIs' scope, rather than getting a particular set of channels "by mistake" as a result of implementation details :-) - one-to-one messages[1]: PRIVMSG on IRC, IMs on XMPP, SMSs in telepathy-ring, etc. Currently handled by Shell and Empathy, could be handled by Chat in future - nameless ad-hoc chatrooms[2]: what you get when you add a a contact to a one-to-one conversation, in protocols that let you do that, like MSNP and Skype). I don't think any current Telepathy CMs do this, but telepathy-butterfly used to do this for MSNP, and I think the proprietary Telepathy CM on the N900/N9 did this for Skype. Is Chat going to be the handler for these? I would personally give these the same UI as one-to-one channels, if I was implementing a UI (I'm not). - ad-hoc chatrooms with a meaningless name (a UUID or something)[3]: this is what you get when you add a contact to a one-to-one conversation on Google Talk. It should be presented in UIs in the same way as a nameless ad-hoc chatroom, but is different at the protocol level (loggers can use the name to tie together conversations, for instance). Is Chat going to be the handler for these? Again, I would personally group them together with one-to-one channels. - chatrooms with a human-meaningful name (e.g. #telepathy on IRC, j...@conference.jabber.org on XMPP)[4]. If I understand correctly, this is what Polari is meant for? I think these do make sense to have a less message-oriented and more room-oriented UI (a "room/location/conference" rather than "chat" metaphor). If you want to match channels by protocol (e.g. an IRC-only UI), either we'll have to introduce new handler matching API, or GNOME Shell will have to learn to discriminate between multiple UIs that telepathy-misison-control considers "equally good". Either is completely do-able, but we do need to understand the use-cases before we design. Regards, S [1] Telepathy channel filter: { ...ChannelType = ...Text, TargetHandleType = CONTACT } [2] Telepathy channel filter: { ...ChannelType = ...Text, TargetHandleType = NONE } [3] Telepathy channel filter: { ...ChannelType = ...Text, TargetHandleType = ROOM, ...Room2.RoomName = "" } [4] Telepathy channel filter: { ...ChannelType = ...Text, TargetHandleType = ROOM } (and because Mission Control has "closest match first" semantics, filter [3] will take precedence for nameless rooms) _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list