On May 28, 2011, at 06:46:17, [email protected] wrote: > As I understand it, I think the problem here is because growl as a > notification system has been designed such that everything belongs to an > owner (user).
Indeed, quite a few problems/requests/questions in the past year or so have come out of sysadmins wanting to integrate Growl into a more controlled networked and multiple-user environment, while Growl is designed from the ground up for single users. Multiple-user usage simply never occurred to us; the developers who designed it (I came in later) designed it for themselves. > Should (optional) user fields be added to the protocol to allow for operation > in user-less environments? > This could be pretty cool. Eg. what if a bug-tracking website could send me > notifications about bug changes, as it does with emails currently? PMs from > forums? possibilities… This is already possible as a custom header that Growl ignores, but it would function only as metadata; it wouldn't be useful for authentication or authorization. Adding support for usernames for those purposes in a backward-compatible way is much harder. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Growl Discuss" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/growldiscuss?hl=en.
