Am Sa 29 Sep 2007 07:10:59 CEST schrieb Dan Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Fri, 2007-09-28 at 08:54 +0200, Helmut Schaa wrote: >> Hi, >> >> just stumbled across an issue while playing around with wireless connections >> in KNM. >> >> Why does NM require specific_object to be set when connecting to a wireless >> network? Shouldn't the wireless and security settings suffice? What >> if I want >> to connect to a hidden network where no AP is available yet? > > The reason for specific_object is this... A connection doesn't > necessarily _have_ to correspond to a specific AP. Therefore, the > choice is left up to the user client which specific AP to apply the > connection to (as long as that AP is still compatible with the > connection). For example, say you have two APs with the same SSID, but > one is bg and one is b-only. Maybe the applet wants to connection to > the bg one specifically to get higher speed, who knows. But the setting "802-11-wireless" has a member "bssid". If the frontend wants to connect to a specific AP it should be sufficient to pass the AP's BSSID, not? > That said, you've got a point with hidden networks. We'll probably have > to allow a null specific_object for wireless and regard specific_object > as a hint only. Right :) >> In my opinion NM should (if no AP is specified) try to find one in >> its AP-list >> which fits best the connection's settings and use this one (for hidden >> networks of course no AP should be used). I think there was some code in NM >> which had this behaviour before? > > Yes, this is how it should work. Regards, Helmut _______________________________________________ NetworkManager-list mailing list NetworkManager-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
