Hi Andrew, On 11/23/2010 10:55 AM, Andrzej Zaborowski wrote: > Hi, > > On 23 November 2010 17:05, Denis Kenzior <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 11/23/2010 09:33 AM, Lucas, GuillaumeX wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> According to the 3GPP specifications there is some missing points in the >>> SATK DisplayText implementation and I want to propose some API changes here. >>> >>> 1. clear message after delay / wait for user to clear flag >>> >>> This flag corresponds to the bit 8 of the command qualifier (see ETSI TS >>> 102 223) and indicates how the message should be cleared by the UI. >>> In the STK agent documentation it's indicated that this flag is handled >>> using different timeout value for the Agent DisplayText method call. But >>> that doesn't seem the case in the code: there is no check of the flag. >> >> Andrew has to answer this one, it seems like there's a disconnect >> between the implementation and the docs. Probably just a bug. > > It was in my first proposal, however the decision made here on the > list or on IRC (I don't remember) was to remove all the details from > the specification until there's a specific use case for them from UI > authors. The current API is greatly simplified compared to TS 102.223 > on the basis that some of the parameters are never used by SIM > manufacturers. This includes for example the "help available" > information in the commands, the return values like "help requested", > "icon could not be displayed", "screen busy" and many other bits. On
The help stuff is fully pointless, so we definitely won't be supporting that one. > one hand this makes sense but on the other I don't see it as a huge > saving as long a we design the API in such a way that the unneeded > call parameters or return values can be ignored by the UI writer. I > have to point out that you were the advocate for simplifying the API > to the minimum level needed to implement the iPhone STK app :) Oh I still am ;) > > As for the clear after delay flag, there's a check for it in > display_text_cb (line 1248). As far as I can make out the only > difference is the response sent to the SIM. So it has been a long time since those discussions, but it does seem to me that using a higher timeout in the case of 'wait_for_user' flag seems like a good idea. Do you remember why we left this out? Regards, -Denis _______________________________________________ ofono mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ofono.org/listinfo/ofono
