On Mo, 2011-08-29 at 14:03 +0200, Chris Kühl wrote: > On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 12:25 PM, Patrick Ohly <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mo, 2011-08-29 at 11:50 +0200, Chris Kühl wrote: > >> 2011/8/26 Patrick Ohly <[email protected]>: > > But see my later email: after some more thinking I came to the > > conclusion that "deviceName" should stay as it is (name chosen by the > > user) and the new information should go into "templateName". > > Did you mean peerName instead of templateName?
Yes. > Patrick Ohly <[email protected]> wrote: > >> The UI should be adapted to use peerName instead of deviceName, if > >> peerName is available. That way the user would see his chosen name > >> instead of the vendor/model name, which will not be unique in the > >> (unlikely) case that the user has more than one. Not a big deal. > >> > >> We might have the inverse situation, too: multiple different devices all > >> called "My Phone". I think users should (and can) avoid this, so we > >> should continue to display only the chosen name instead of adding the > >> vendor/model information - right? > > > > Given that the UI should only display the chosen name, and expects it in > > "deviceName", perhaps we should keep the traditional D-Bus API semantic > > unchanged and put the Device ID profile information into the "peerName"? > > > > That is a bit backwards (peerName is used for user-configurable strings > > elsewhere), but has the advantage that no changes will be needed in the > > D-Bus clients to get the desired behavior. > > > > ... I understand the following. > > 1) In the case that we have no PnPInformation info we have... > > deviceName = User-modifiable name > peerName = User-modifiable name Better leave the peerName unset. It's semantic will be "we know for sure that this device is a "<vendor>[ <product>]". > 2) In the case that we have PnPInformation info but no product match > in the lookup table we have... > > deviceName = User-modifiable name > peerName = Vendor found in Lookup table Correct. > 3) In the case that we have PnPInformation info and a product match in > the lookup table we have... > > deviceName = User-modifiable name > peerName = Vendor + " " + Product found in Lookup table > > Is this right? Yes. > Also, the templateName was and is simply the "templateName" field from > the template. The code is... > > string TemplateConfig::getTemplateName() { > return m_metaProps["templateName"]; > } Correct. > Should this be different? We could create a different template for > each class of phone. I don't think anything around templateName needs to be changed. -- 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
