On Mon, 2007-02-19 at 14:10 +0000, Robert McQueen wrote: > Marco Pesenti Gritti wrote: > > I forgot an important question. Will all the communication have to go > > through tubes or we will allow activity authors to use just the presence > > service with their own communication stuff? (i.e. let the PS expose the > > buddies ip) > > From my perspective, not really. It's important to us that in Telepathy > we provide the right primitives that it's very easy to get an existing > TCP/whatever app (consider VNC via Telepathy or somesuch) working over > tubes. This would probably take the form of being able to get the CM to > expose the tube as a localhost TCP socket or Unix socket, and providing > convenient API to represent this to your app, eg GIOChannels in Glib, > whatever. In the long run the connection manager is going to get far > more clever at eg NAT traversal and stuff than your app will be. > > For people who are writing an activity from scratch, I'd far rather > provide higher-level contructs like D-Bus messages, even using the > Python bindings to just have method/signal invocations, rather than > people having to invent their own wire protocols and > marshalling/serialisation etc.
OK, we have been saying to activity authors that just getting ip/port from the presence service would have worked so far. I guess we need to reconsider. I have two use cases in mind here: 1 Abiword collaboration 2 Develop activity using bazaar for code sharing. About 1 I suppose maybe making abi collab use telepathy could be a win for the desktop version too?;) 2 is more like a legacy issue... I'd really like uwog and orospark to comment directly on this! Marco _______________________________________________ Sugar mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.laptop.org/mailman/listinfo/sugar
