GObjectification of protocols

Jorge Villaseñor salinasv at gmail.com
Thu Aug 15 12:58:25 EDT 2013

On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 5:44 PM, Ankit Vani <a at nevitus.org> wrote:

> Hi everyone
> I am starting work on the gobjectification of protocols soon.
> I would like to know, especially from prpl devs, what are the issues faced
> in
> the current implementation of protocols that gobjectification should fix.
> Or
> things that are fine but could be made better.
> Also, if you have suggestions regarding what would be the best way to
> gobjectify
> protocols, please let me know. According to the problems faced (or changes
> desired) in the current implementation, I will come up with a plan and let
> you
> know. I want to be sure of the approach before I start anything.
> Currently, we make 2 plugins for yahoo (yahoo and yahoo-jp), 3 for XMPP
> (XMPP,
> google, facebook) etc. According to the changes in the plugin API, this
> should
> no longer be necessary and a single plugin can register multiple protocols
> in
> the core. However, is there a reason this has been done this way other
> than the
> fact that more than one protocol was not possible for one plugin?
> And for example, in the gobjectified protocols, perhaps XMPP, google and
> facebook can inherit an abstract protocol XMPPCore?
> Ankit

I think it would be a good idea to let 3rd party prpls based on xmpp (or
anything else) to register themself without needing to change the on-tree
xmpp code, instead of needing the xmpp object to register the protocols.


A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://pidgin.im/pipermail/devel/attachments/20130815/fd60ec0d/attachment.html>

More information about the Devel mailing list