Direct IM requests and the Request API
evands at pidgin.im
Wed Apr 25 12:25:37 EDT 2007
On Apr 25, 2007, at 11:26 AM, Ethan Blanton wrote:
> Looking at these parameters, they seem redundant to me; if a
> conversation exists, the account and who parameters can be derived
> from it, and the account and who parameters can be used to find it.
> If a conversation with that buddy does not exist, the account and who
> parameters can be used to verify this. It seems that the conversation
> parameter could (and should?) be removed.
I initially did just account/who, but I was trying to work forward
toward a future in which we aren't so tied to the account + who ==
conversation model, as that is very one-to-one IM centric. Including
the conversation allows associating requests with a particular group
chat, conference, or IM, if desired. So in the situation in which
1. Bob talking to Jon in an IM
2. Bob talking to Jon and Anne in a group chat
account + who has to assume that we're talking about (1), but what if
the request is in some way tied to Jon within the group chat (2).
I don't know of a situation offhand in which that's possible with our
current group chat implementation -- things in the group chat which
are targeted at a particular user have to be taken out of the group
chat, into a private message of some sort -- but it seemed like
allowing for that future expansion could be useful.
Is that too forward-looking for a current API change? We certainly
could go back and add that parameter later if it becomes necessary,
but it'd be time consuming to do later whereas doing it all at once
now is the same trouble as adding the two parameters.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Devel