Re: Bug 1852: support creation of xmpp: field types in OGo

On Mar 25, 2007, at 12:28, Sebastian Reitenbach wrote:
>> 20 would mean: URL which points to a chat identity (in every other
>> way it would be a regular URL field anyways? [do we have a URL
>> type?? ;-)])
>
>  so I changed the patch to be able to define arbitrary link types via
> OGoExtendedUrlAttributesMap Default, for example:
>
>         OGoExtendedUrlAttributesMap = (
>             {
>                 type = 3;
>                 urlpattern = "mailto:%@";
>             },
>             {
>                 type = 4;
>                 urlpattern = "%@";
>             },
>             {
>                 type = 20;
>                 urlpattern = "xmpp:%@";
>             },
>             {
>                 type = 21;
>                 urlpattern = "fish://%@";
>             },
>             {
>                 type = 22;
>                 urlpattern = "imaps://%@";
>             }
>         );
>
>
> SkyPublicExtendedPersonAttributes = (
>             {
>                 key = jabberid;
>                 target = "_self";
>                 type = 20;
>             },

No, I don't see why we need that many different type codes. Eg the  
imaps and fish pattern are useless because the value still needs to  
be structure.

A new type only makes sense when the semantic information would be  
useful. In all other cases its the task of the UI to process URLs in  
a better way.


Wrt to URL patterns, those should be but in the attribute  
configuration! Eg:
             {
                 key        = jabberid;
                 target     = "_self";
                 type       = 20;
		urlpattern = "xmpp:%@";
             },
and
             {
                 key        = aimid;
                 target     = "_self";
                 type       = 20;
		urlpattern = "aim:%@";
             },

'20' would just mean its an IM address (having an own type for IM  
might make sense, though I'm not entirely convinced of that either  
since a generic URL UI can easily detect that a URL is a chat one).

Though I also dislike the urlpattern in this case. The database  
should store the full URL, not just the value the user entered. Maybe  
'defaultUrlScheme' might make sense (the editor would check whether  
the value entered by the user has a scheme and if not, would add the  
default scheme).

Thinking about it, for the specific case of IM addresses we should  
really use the Outlook field in the way Microsoft uses it. Its sounds  
kinda stupid to reinvent the wheel here (how long before people ask  
about having IM addresses in Outlook/Evolution ...)


Hm, all that doesn't look very appealing to me. The patches are not  
very dangerous and are great fast hacks, but IMHO the issue is not  
thought out well enough (and I won't have the time to do it right now).
So feel free to apply them, but I reserve the right to drop support  
for that in future versions of OGo ;-)

Thanks,
   Helge
-- 
Helge Hess
http://www.helgehess.eu/


-- 
OpenGroupware.org Discussion [email protected]
http://mail.opengroupware.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss