On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 8:45 AM, Boris 'billiob' Faure wrote:
> 2010/8/26 Stéphane Bisinger :
> > I think that if we want to split daemon/client, telepathy is an
> > eccelent option since we would basically do the same thing with an
> > implementation of our own. So the question is: would it be a
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 4:31 AM, Boris 'billiob' Faure wrote:
> I really don't like the dependency on DBUS, but that's the best way to
> achieve it.
>
I don't either, but without it, it becomes incredibly difficult to have a
client/server mode since we'd need to create our own IPC protocol which i
2010/8/26 Stéphane Bisinger :
> I think that if we want to split daemon/client, telepathy is an
> eccelent option since we would basically do the same thing with an
> implementation of our own. So the question is: would it be a good idea
> to split aMSN2 in a client/daemon structure?
that's the go
I think that if we want to split daemon/client, telepathy is an
eccelent option since we would basically do the same thing with an
implementation of our own. So the question is: would it be a good idea
to split aMSN2 in a client/daemon structure?
Based on what I see from the centerim project, a LO
I really don't like the dependency on DBUS, but that's the best way to
achieve it.
My main issue about using telepathy is that we were going to have a
kind of preview 0.1 release in september. Should we still aim at that
goal? I think we should since we don't know how much time will be
needed to in
Hi All!
Long time no speak on this mailing list.
Billiob raised an interesting question on IRC about amsn2 and possible
multiprotocol support, the discussion then led to whether or not have some
kind of amsn daemon, so we could easily 'switch front ends'.. example, you'd
be on GTK front end, then y
