On 05/28/2011 06:41 PM, Sascha Silbe wrote:
Excerpts from Simon Schampijer's message of Mon May 23 13:14:51 +0200 2011:
On 04/16/2011 01:05 PM, Sascha Silbe wrote:
Excerpts from Simon Schampijer's message of Thu Apr 14 19:43:05 +0200 2011:
This adds the handling of DBUS tube channels to the
'HandlerChannelFilter' in activity's telepathy client.
It would be nice to have some rationale for the change. Why didn't we do
this before and in what way is the new design better? Are there any
compatibility issues for activities that don't use sugar-toolkit (e.g.
because they're not written in Python)?
I discussed these changes in detail with Tomeu and he was happy about them.
Good to know, but doesn't answer my questions. What impact do these
changes have on e.g. EToys?
I think [1] and the comments before does explain why it is an issue and
why it has not been done before because the real issue was hidden.
One part has to claim the interest into the dbus channels, either the
Shell or the Activity. Before my patch sharing with dbus tubes did work,
since the shell claimed that they would handle the channels, but this
had the side effect of ghost invitations. Now I changed the code that
the shell only approves invitations and the activity is responsible to
handle/claim the channels they are interested in. Etoys (currently still
using the presence service) will need to make the same, create a Handler
that claims the channels Etoys is interested in [2].
Maybe it makes more sense when you read the code after the patches about
the 'handle dbus tubes' and 'fix invitations' have all landed.
Thanks fr your review - I hope this helps to clear the situation.
Simon
[1] http://dev.laptop.org/ticket/10738#comment:6
[2]
http://telepathy.freedesktop.org/doc/book/sect.channel-dispatcher.clients.html#sect.channel-dispatcher.clients.impl.handler
_______________________________________________
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
