'Re: Models Moving Plan'

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-telepathy
Subject:    Re: Models Moving Plan
From:       Aleix Pol <aleixpol () kde ! org>
Date:       2013-01-24 23:20:59
Message-ID: CACcA1RovqZ4nQ1R07H4pMfbzVm=W9s2+zrHJMbKwTE=+LMMfsQ () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

[Attachment #2 (multipart/alternative)]

On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 2:39 PM, David Edmundson <david@davidedmundson.co.uk
> wrote:

> We are about to enter phase 6
>
> "6 - Share roles enum and names between ContactListModel (ours) and the
> one from KPeople"
>
> Question 1:
>
> Mck182 has written a translationIdentityProxy that converts
> PersonsRoles to KTp roles.
> This allows KPeople to do it's own thing, whilst co-existing with KTp code.
>
> Is this a quick hack, or a good medium-long term solution?
>
> Question 2:
>
> Roles are currently in the old class ContactsModel, I propose making a
> KTp types.h file and having all roles as an enum there. Is this a good
> idea?
>
> Question 3:
>
> There are a lot of roles that we don't need in the old model. I want
> this list reduced to what we actually need and use, how should we go
> about doing this?
>
> Question 4:
>
> Currently in the model we sometimes expose thing in mulltiple ways, In
> particular presence. There are 5 roles for presence currently:
>
>         PresenceRole,   ( a Tp::Presence object)
>         PresenceIconRole, (icon for this presence type)
>         PresenceStatusRole, (string)
>         PresenceTypeRole, (presence type enum)
>         PresenceMessageRole, (string)
>
> Is this a bad thing? Given models are for portability should we drop
> the PresenceRole? Should we drop all other 4 and leave the logic up to
> the UI?
> _______________________________________________
> KDE-Telepathy mailing list
> KDE-Telepathy@kde.org
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-telepathy
>

Q1/Q2:
I like using the identity model in the KTP side. I'd say that we should aim
that some software using KPeople, only should link to KPeople. Adding a
ktptypes.h include would add a weird dependency outside. I don't think it
makes sense to have such an include within ktp, but it could be useful.

Q3/Q4:
That breaks ABI, so it shouldn't happen. If you can break it I'd say it
should be for a more important reason than that.
Is that a big problem for the ContactsModel?

Hope this helps...
Aleix

[Attachment #5 (text/html)]

On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 2:39 PM, David Edmundson <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a \
href="mailto:david@davidedmundson.co.uk" \
target="_blank">david@davidedmundson.co.uk</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><div \
class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 \
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">

We are about to enter phase 6<br>
<div class="im"><br>
&quot;6 - Share roles enum and names between ContactListModel (ours) and the<br>
one from KPeople&quot;<br>
<br>
</div>Question 1:<br>
<br>
Mck182 has written a translationIdentityProxy that converts<br>
PersonsRoles to KTp roles.<br>
This allows KPeople to do it&#39;s own thing, whilst co-existing with KTp code.<br>
<br>
Is this a quick hack, or a good medium-long term solution?<br>
<br>
Question 2:<br>
<br>
Roles are currently in the old class ContactsModel, I propose making a<br>
KTp types.h file and having all roles as an enum there. Is this a good<br>
idea?<br>
<br>
Question 3:<br>
<br>
There are a lot of roles that we don&#39;t need in the old model. I want<br>
this list reduced to what we actually need and use, how should we go<br>
about doing this?<br>
<br>
Question 4:<br>
<br>
Currently in the model we sometimes expose thing in mulltiple ways, In<br>
particular presence. There are 5 roles for presence currently:<br>
<br>
            PresenceRole,    ( a Tp::Presence object)<br>
            PresenceIconRole, (icon for this presence type)<br>
            PresenceStatusRole, (string)<br>
            PresenceTypeRole, (presence type enum)<br>
            PresenceMessageRole, (string)<br>
<br>
Is this a bad thing? Given models are for portability should we drop<br>
the PresenceRole? Should we drop all other 4 and leave the logic up to<br>
the UI?<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div \
class="h5">_______________________________________________<br> KDE-Telepathy mailing \
list<br> <a href="mailto:KDE-Telepathy@kde.org">KDE-Telepathy@kde.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-telepathy" \
target="_blank">https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-telepathy</a><br> \
</div></div></blockquote></div><div><br></div>Q1/Q2:<br><div>I like using the \
identity model in the KTP side. I&#39;d say that we should aim that some software \
using KPeople, only should link to KPeople. Adding a ktptypes.h include would add a \
weird dependency outside. I don&#39;t think it makes sense to have such an include \
within ktp, but it could be useful.</div>

<div><br></div><div>Q3/Q4:</div><div>That breaks ABI, so it shouldn&#39;t happen. If \
you can break it I&#39;d say it should be for a more important reason than \
that.</div><div>Is that a big problem for the ContactsModel?</div>

<div><br></div><div>Hope this helps...</div><div>Aleix</div>

_______________________________________________
KDE-Telepathy mailing list
KDE-Telepathy@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-telepathy

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 