On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 05:34:53PM +0100, Magnus Henoch wrote: > Sjoerd Simons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Why not use the Telepatmy XMPP client ? :) > > Because the thing I enjoy most about writing an XMPP client is being > able to hack new protocols and features along with the UI. It seems to > me that when writing a Telepathy client I would be restricted to the UI > parts, with a more-or-less lowest-denominator protocol engine to > interface to.
Telepathy isn't a lowest-denominator protocol engine. The whole reason it makes heavy use of D-Bus interfaces is so that you can expose all protocol specific features you'd like too. But it is true that the standard interfaces are designed in a way that they're usefull for multiple protocols (otherwise the framework wouldn't make much sense in the first place). But that doesn't mean that they're based on the lowest-denominator :) > Of course, building a Telepathy client would be a different kind of > pleasure. Some day I will create telepathy.el??? :) > > But to answer your question, stream-engine works with all Telepathy > > Connection managers. But your client probably doesn't implement > > one. In which case you might want to do your own wrapper around > > farsight or farsight2. > > Yes, I figured that. > > > But especially with video we've noticed that this is far from an optimal > > design. > > How come? (Is there a record of that discussion?) In any case, > jabber.el won't be able to do better than that. The biggest issue is lack of control. Especially if you embed your video windows in other processes things start to become quite tricky. Sjoerd -- The University of California Statistics Department; where mean is normal, and deviation standard.
