pidgin at unreliablesource.net
Thu Jun 28 11:47:12 EDT 2007
On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 10:26:00AM -0500, Chris Forsythe wrote:
> >While the shaking is a large part of what I despise about this feature, I
> >also just plainly see zero reason to need such a thing. I would turn off
> >any such notifications immediately. If someone wants my attention they can
> >send me an IM, if I don't notice or choose not to respond I very much do
> >not want them demanding it in other (likely more annoying) ways.
> True, but isn't libpurple a library that does not shape Pidgin? We
> want/need this in Adium, if we can't add stuff we need into libpurple
> that you guys don't need, do not ever forsee adding, we're feature
> blocked by what Pidgin needs then. It's been decided to add buzz support
> to Adium for all protocols which can support it, and since we can get a
> private thing going for xmpp which can then become an optional xep. I
> think it's an excellent opportunity for Andreas to become a more
> prominent contributor to the community and for us to test the stance
> that they want features implemented at the same time proposals are sent in.
I have no problem with adium providing any features it wants, and like I
said in a previous email (to which I have not yet read Adnreas's response)
I believe this specific feature could be fully handled with a plugin. And
given that adding it to libpurple requires pidgin to support it as well
I'm not sure including it in libpurple is the right route. But as I say
further down, this libpurple-as-a-library thing is still being worked out.
> Sean has stated on the Adium development list that we can have features
> in libpurple that Pidgin would not use, since it's a library. Do you not
> agree with that?
I do agree with that, I think the process by which libpurple becomes a
library on its own is still in process, consider these growing pains.
I think part of the issue is that at the moment there aren't ways of
adding features just to one UI, the registered buzz command will work in
pidgin simply by virtue of being defined. And I am not at all sure that
there is a good way to prevent that that isn't worse than just having the
command itself. =)
> >Though I must admit to being curious as to the notification method you are
> >talking about. Since I imagine it would need to be something other than a
> >sound (because normal messages do that), a popup notification
> >(guifications/growl) (because normal messages can do that), a printed
> >message in the conversation window (becuase that might as well just be a
> >normal message), or causing the window to shake (because you just ruled
> >that out) I am somewhat at a loss as to what else you might do.
> It may be something like this ripple coming from a message window:
> However, it's his project, and he can implement it however he wants.
And oh dear, that ripple is even more annoying than the shaking, at least
the shaking doesn't affect other windows on my display, that ripple would
prevent me from even reading text in a window that was adjacent to my IM
window. But then again people do like things shiny.
More information about the Devel