Proposal for an extended callbacks field

[Etan Reisner]

On Wed, Jul 25, 2007 at 04:27:54PM +0200, Andreas Monitzer wrote:
> On Jul 25, 2007, at 16:15, Etan Reisner wrote:
>
> >What exactly is the snag that has been hit? Does it somehow require
> >adding
> >more than four prpl callbacks?
>
> I wasn't allowed to add a single one, out of the fear of running out
> of them.
> So it doesn't matter if there are four or zero of them right there
> (except that one could be used for this idea).
>
> andy

As I recall, and I don't recally particularly clearly, you weren't allowed
to add what we considered a frivolous prpl_info callback, that is one that
could be solved in other ways we considered more useful. There is a huge
distinction between not being allowed to do something at one point and not
being allowed to it at all.


I don't know why it is that you seem to keep over-reacting to the comments
that come from the pidgin side of things but you really need to stop it.
It is entirely unproductive to explode every time your initial attempt at
something is rejected or we suggest that perhaps a different way would be
better.

So again I ask, what exactly is the problem that you are running into now
that requires a prpl_info callback?

	-Etan