msn-pecan now has direct connection support (fast file transfers)

[Daniel Atallah]

On Jan 3, 2008 6:34 PM, Jorge Villaseñor <salinasv at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Jan 3, 2008 4:59 PM, Richard Laager <rlaager at wiktel.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2008-01-03 at 16:48 -0600, Gary Kramlich wrote:
> > > PSM: "Happy Birthday to me!"
> > > Status: "having dinner with my parents..."
> > >
> > > Is that a good enough example?
> >
> > No. As I said in another message on this thread, you can't set those at
> > the same time, as MSN allows only one message.
> >
> > I'm looking for an example along the lines of what I provided... a
> > series of statuses & messages and the transitions between them.
> >
> > Richard
>
> As Felipe said. The change on the status doesn't matter when we have a
> PSM. People in MSN (wich is my primary prpl wit more than 250
> contacts) doesn't use it (at least in my buddy list) like a status
> message. It's is a extended nickname. I don't know if it's correct or
> they are abusing but it's true.
>
> Examples: Here are some examples from my buddy list that show that the
> status doesn't matter.
> Busy: /Dominant Primordial Beast
> Available: Hello Madrid.
> Away: So if we have a chance, would you let me know?
> Available: St Louis ahead
> Available: Festivus
> Available: Happy new year.
> Busy: Laaaambert.
>
> Well this are only some of the PSM I have in my buddy list. Is obvious
>  that none of them show anything related to "status"
>

> I agree with Felipe that PSM and status message are different. I don't
> know if it bothers me to have attached to the status message on other
> protocols because I don't use really hard other protocols.
>
> Maybe we should look at the official client and how it define the PSM.
> If people are abusing but it's really a STATUS stuff I don't care to
> have it like status, but if the official client define it like
> "extended nickname you can write here everything you want" I guess we
> need to detach it from the status.


> Hope this will help to clarify the difference.


I guess it really doesn't matter what people want to put in the status
message field; I still don't see any difference between this "PSM" (of which
the SM is "Status Message", right? :P) and what we're calling a "Status
Message".  Perhaps it is that the name of the status message field is
confusing (although I don't know why that would be the case as the PSM is
named almost identically) - it really is just a freeform field that you can
put whatever you want in it.  There are a number of people on my buddy list
who put all sorts of random things in their xmpp and AIM status messages in
Pidgin, exactly like the behavior you're describing with the MSN field, so I
really don't see why it should be mapped to anything different.

By mapping PSM to Pidgin's status message, we offer the flexibility of
keeping a number of preset messages that can be switched between at the same
time as setting the status, and it fits well within the unified interface
methodology of Pidgin.

I feel like I must be missing something here because it seems obvious to me
that, in spite of the various comments to the contrary, for the usage
examples mentioned, this PSM fits into our current status message field just
fine.  The only issue that I see is that if someone wants to maintain the
same PSM when changing status, they must make sure to do so (which perhaps
isn't going to be immediately intuitive to people migrating from MSN) -  the
same applies to users of other protocols who want to use the status message
in a similar way.  I guess I don't think it is a problem if things work
slightly differently from a usage standpoint in Pidgin than they do in MSN,
there are any number of other things that we make no attempt to do
similarly- perhaps an entry in the FAQ detailing this difference would be a
good idea.

-D
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://pidgin.im/pipermail/devel/attachments/20080103/79710e54/attachment.html>