On Mi, 2011-08-03 at 17:02 +0200, Chris Kühl wrote: > Hi, > > I've been working on retrieving the immutable vendor and product id > provided by the Bluetooth Device ID profile (DIP). See my > bluetooth-device-id branch[1] for what's been pushed so far. > > Being that we now have a means of getting reliable device information > it seems to me that in the cases where this information was > attainable, a matching score is no longer needed. If the fingerprint > matches the product name from the look-up table exactly (and it will > because we've created the lookup table and the template fingerprints) > we suggest just that one template instead of several. If we didn't get > this product name from the look-up table then everything should behave > as normal because we can't trust the user-modifiable device name > string. > > Does this sound reasonable or are there other reasons you'd want more > than one template to choose from even when you're sure which device > you're dealing with?
What about a Sony Ericcson phone which unknown product ID? We have two templates for vendor=Sony Ericsson. I agree that if the vendor matches exactly one template, preferring that template makes sense. I can imagine corner cases where it is not the right one (unknown Sony Ericsson phone which behaves like a Nokia), but that should be unlikely. So we should take advantage of the more reliable information to propose only one template. -- Best Regards, Patrick Ohly The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak on behalf of Intel on this matter. _______________________________________________ SyncEvolution mailing list [email protected] http://lists.syncevolution.org/listinfo/syncevolution
