On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 10:54 PM, Dan Williams d...@redhat.com wrote:
Not sure I follow this... you shouldn't need a secret agent if all that
the UI is doing is Update() and AddConnection(). A secret agent is only
required if there are any agent-provided secrets (ie, some secret has
the flag
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 11:20 PM, Dan Williams d...@redhat.com wrote:
Like you say if a secret is wrong or needs to be changed, there's no
facility to ask for that secret. We can (and should) make sure NM would
fail the connection with a NM_DEVICE_REASON_NO_SECRETS or something like
that if NM
[CC'ing sugar-devel since this message is about the Sugar side of things]
Excerpts from Daniel Drake's message of Sun Sep 04 19:32:29 +0200 2011:
I'm working on finally porting Sugar to NetworkManager-0.9
Great, thanks!
and I have
a query regarding the SecretAgent implementation.
The docs
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 8:12 PM, Sascha Silbe si...@activitycentral.com wrote:
I'd argue that Sugar shouldn't store the secrets at all but rather let
NetworkManager take care of that.
I agree, and this is exactly how my code works. That is unrelated to
the issue at hand. A SecretAgent
4 matches
Mail list logo
