Re: gossip-telepathy status

On Sun, 2006-08-06 at 20:18 -0700, Eitan Isaacson wrote:
> Hello,

Hi,

> I have been making progress in the last week with gossip - telepathy
> integration, my code is pretty sloppy, in the thought that it will
> mostly be ad-hoc anyway until we start moving on a separate CVS branch.
> that day has come!

I noticed you should now have your CVS account. I will create a branch
tonight in Gossip. I was hoping we could wait a little longer and have
Gossip in SVN, but it looks like that's not going to be the case.

> Since Telepathy basically abstracts all protocol-specific stuff, there
> will be some architectural changes, for one thing 'protocols/*' will
> turn obsolete, since we will not be dealing with multiple protocols
> anymore, we leave that job to various connection managers over d-bus,
> with a common abstracted API.
> 
> This requires plenty of changes in libgossip itself, for example,
> GossipAccount must be further generalized than it already is.
> Also the polymorphism that drives GossipProtocol will be unnecessary,
> since there will be only one "protocol".
> 
> The feedback that I am interested to get now has more to do with the
> actual source tree. Today it looks roughly like this:
> 
> protocols/* - implementation of various protocols (today we only have
> protocols/jabber), all have a common interface (connect, disconnect,
> etc.).
> 
> libgossip/ - implementation of all the gobjects and datatypes that are
> needed in an IM program.
> 
> src/ - all the UI stuff. interfaces with libgossip.
> 
> I would like it to like look this:
> 
> libtpgossip/ - All telepathy-facing code, it will replace protocols/,
> and will have long function names, like
> gossip_telepathy_get_own_account.

This is an interesting idea. I have yet to look into the architectural
aspects of Telepathy to know if this is the best approach.

> 
> libgossip/ - same as above, obviously interfaces plenty with
> libtpgossip.
> 
> src/ - same as above, could arguably interface directly with libtpgossip
> since it will have more of a static standing in the source tree. so it
> could use some utility functions, like listing all connection managers
> installed, and such.

There are likely to be changes in the src/ tree, but I want to keep them
to a minimum if possible. The src/ tree uses a LOT of libgossip, and if
I can keep that API very similar then we save ourselves a lot of work. 

> That's it. Nothing is too petty, please tell me what you think ;)

I will spend some time ASAP this week to check out your patch and
understand this more to reply in detail this email.

-- 
Regards,
Martyn