Protocol Plugin Development Problem - Status Types

Will Thompson will at
Sat Nov 24 10:14:08 EST 2007

On Sat, Nov 24, 2007 at 09:52:48AM -0500, Daniel Atallah wrote:
> On Nov 24, 2007 6:13 AM, Ralf Kistner <ralfgm at> wrote:
> > - Invisible (where does this come from?)
> The way the comparison works, it doesn't try to use the lowest common subset
> of statuses because it really doesn't know that the statuses are necessarily
> equivalent across multiple protocols (although the argument could be made
> that it could try harder to do so).  This would get significantly more
> complicated and might cause unexpected behavior - Do you match on the name?
> What if the names are the same, but some other part of the status is
> different?

It might be worth special-casing the PURPLE_STATUS_INVISIBLE primitive,
both to avoid confusion and because it's vaguely harmful that there's no
feedback when an account isn't actually set to Invisible if you choose

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <>

More information about the Devel mailing list