Proposal for an extended callbacks field

[Etan Reisner]

On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 07:42:24PM -0400, Eric Richie wrote:
> > Do you have logs of the conversation where you were told this? I don't
> > recall saying any such thing and I certainly can't imagine anyone else
> > having said so. What I am certain was said is that pidgin has no interest
> > in support transports and that pidgin will not write any code to support
> > them.
<snip>
> This is why I log everything...
>
> The following is part of a relevant discussion that occurred in #adium on
> June 15th:
>
> durin42:seanegan: while you're here - what are your thoughts on supporting
> gateways in libpurple?
<snip>
> seanegan:durin42: My thoughts have been that as much functionality as
> reasonable should go into purple, even if it's not used by every UI.
>
> seanegan: Which is the general consensus.
>
> hal2k:seanegan: the general consensus by whom?
>
> seanegan:by the Pidgin developers.
>
> durin42:good
>
> durin42: that'll make our lives easier when we get there
>
> hal2k:seanegan: I've heard other things in #pidgin, though
>
> hal2k:see my last posting to the devel-list about plugins talking to plugins
<snip>
> durin42 = Augie Fackler (Andreas's Mentor)
> seanegan = Sean Egan ;)
> hal2k = Andreas
>
> I know that's not absolutely everything that's ever been discussed on the
> subject but this was one I was present for that should help fill in a couple
> details.  (I also have the full logs of the session if need be, but this was
> the only relevant part.)

You snipped the comment to which I was responding. Which was:
  > Uh, that's news to me. I was specifically told that gateway support
  > and a discovery browser would never be implemented and/or accepted in
  > libpurple at the start of my project.

Which the log you posted above contradicts rather nicely and which
vindicates my comments, so thank you for proving my point.

> -Eric Richie

	-Etan