On Mo, 2011-08-29 at 15:12 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> > 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>]".
You decided to not implement it like this, did you?
>From your patch:
// This is the user-modifiable device name. Could be shown in
GUIs, for example
localConfigs.insert(pair<string, string>("peerName",
peerTemplate->m_peerName));
+ // This can be either the user-modifiable device name, vendor
+ // name, or product name (vendor + model). This depends on
+ // whether the device supports the Bluetooth Device ID profile
+ // and, if so, whether we have the model in the lookup table.
std::string m_peerName;
Was it simply easier to implement this way or do you prefer that
semantic of "peerName" in a template reported by the D-Bus server?
My concern is that if the D-Bus server always reports a value, the D-Bus
client won't be able to determine whether it has reliable information
about the manufacturer and model.
--
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
