On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 2:57 AM, Torgny Johansson <
[email protected]> wrote:

> > From: Dan Williams [mailto:[email protected]]
> > Sure, that sounds fine, unless we decide to just ignore SIM
> > storage completely and use local storage like Marcel suggests.
>
> For me, just using ME would be fine. Nathan?
>

ME-only works for me.


> > I believe the original idea was that SmsReceived would be
> > emitted to every unique SMS reported, no matter whether that
> > SMS was complete or partial.  Then, when the full SMS was
> > received and reconstructed from all its parts, the Completed
> > signal would be emitted.  If the message was single-part,
> > both SmsReceived *and* completed would be emitted for that message.
>
> Right, so for the final part (regardless if the sms consists of more than
> one message or not) you'll

always send both?
>

This was my interpretation of the API as well.
However, I'm a little bit unclear on what the index numbers should be in the
case of multipart messages. The different parts will have different
low-level index numbers; should we be concealing those and only reporting up
the index number of the first part we received?

That is, does this seem like the correct sequence:
Receive "Part 1 of 3" as SMS index 5. Generate signal "SmsReceived",
index=5, complete=false.
Receive "Part 2 of 3" as SMS index 6. Generate signal "SmsReceived",
index=5, complete=false.
Receive "Part 3 of 3" as SMS index 7. Generate signal "SmsReceived",
index=5, complete=true; generate signal "Completed", index=5, complete=true.

(And if this is the case, do we respect Get or Delete operations on index 6
or 7? How about on index 5 before we're received all three parts?)

If we wanted to avoid maintaining this index mapping, the alternative would
seem to be to include the "Part N of M" metadata in the message dictionary
and make it a problem for the client to solve.

    - Nathan
_______________________________________________
networkmanager-list mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list

Reply via email to