On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 at 12:56:26 +1100, Danielle Madeley wrote: > So, following on from discussion today, the consensus was that this is > fundamentally a pointless requirement [...] > https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=25286
I disagree. Let's discuss this on the bug so there's a good record of the
rationale.
> Passing channels off from a transient Handler to a more long-term
> Handler can be handled internally by the application. I think a
>
> GList *tp_handler_get_handled_channels (TpHandler *) and
> tp_handler_handling_channel (TpHandler *, TpChannel *)
>
> will suffice here.
I don't think it should be necessary to hand off channels between handlers
that live on the same unique name explicitly, and that's the intention
of the spec.
Handlers that don't live on the same unique name can't hand off channels
between themselves without adding API to the ChannelDispatcher, so we shouldn't
allow that in the C API until the ChannelDispatcher actually gains that D-Bus
API. I'll clone your bug to represent it.
S
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ telepathy mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/telepathy
