On Sun, 2011-09-04 at 20:16 +0100, Daniel Drake wrote: > On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 8:12 PM, Sascha Silbe <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I'd argue that Sugar shouldn't store the secrets at all but rather let > > NetworkManager take care of that. > > I agree, and this is exactly how my code works. That is unrelated to > the issue at hand. A SecretAgent implementation is still required for > telling NM those secrets in the first place, so the question still > stands.
Not sure I follow this... you shouldn't need a secret agent if all that the UI is doing is Update() and AddConnection(). A secret agent is only required if there are any agent-provided secrets (ie, some secret has the flag AGENT_OWNED). If you let NM handle all secrets then no secret agent should be required; initial secrets get to NM via the Connection.Update() call, which shouldn't require a secret agent (as long as all secrets are not AGENT_OWNED). Dan _______________________________________________ networkmanager-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
