[Gossip-dev] "id" account param and property

[Xavier Claessens]

On jeu, 2007-01-11 at 18:59 +0000, Martyn Russell wrote:
> Hi Xavier,
> 
> OK. I understand the concept, and I am not too worried about undertaking
> it, but first I want a few questions explained.
> 
> 1. Why do we need to have an "account" parameter at all if for IRC we
> just use "name", "nickname" and "server"? The "id" property could simply
> be a combination of those (for example, <name>@<server> for something
> unique).

To connect to a IRC server we need to tell telepathy-idle which server
and nickname we want. The server is the "server" parameter and the
nickname is the "account" parameter. That's how telepathy works. Once
connected using those information telepathy spec give us a way to
request the name of connection. The spec says that name is unique. The
spec doesn't say how that name should be composed, but I guess
telepathy-idle will make something based on the server name. (for jabber
telepathy-gabble simply use the jid).

> 2. For link local, we currently have a NULL "id" property until we are
> connected right? Is there an "account" parameter used here at all? If so
> what does it mean?

The "id" property is NULL until connected and there is no "account"
parameter.

> 3. Really what I am saying in points 1. and 2. is, why do we need an
> "account" parameter at all for any protocol if the information is
> readily available from another parameter? It seems to me that "account"
> is just there for making a general case parameter for all protocol types.

We need an "account" param for Connection Managers (CM) that ask one.
How it works using telepathy is we ask the CM for a list of parameters
he wants, we display this list to the user to set a value for each then
give the list back to the CM to connect the account... Many CM will have
a "account" field in that list, but not all of them.

> 4. If we have an "id" property, are there any protocols that need to use
> an "id" parameter? In fact, if the "id" property is the thing that
> uniquely identifies the account, then really we should keep the "id"
> property and not need the "id" parameter (which I know is back tracking
> from what I may have said in the bug report, but that is what seems
> logically to me, unless you can show me that we need an "id" parameter).

If we only have a "id" property that is unique, how will we give to IRC
the nickname the user want when connecting ? the IRC CM wants that info
in the "account" parameter, and a nickname is not unique... So we need
both !

> Thanks,

 no problem ;)

Xavier.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.imendio.com/pipermail/gossip-dev/attachments/20070111/50f00ce0/attachment.pgp