Suppose I want to write an application which places a call, and then do something when the call ends. Currently, I have to: • Be an Observer for StreamedMedia channels; • Call CD.CreateChannel(), get a ChannelRequest; • Press Proceed() on the CR; • When I get ObserveChannels called on me, check if Requests_Satisfied includes the CR I just got. If so, that's my channel, and I get to hook up a proxy and wait for it to be invalidated; • When I get CR.Succeeded, I'd better hope that I've seen the channel as an observer (note that if MC hasn't finished introspecting me by the time I request the channel, it might not know I'm an observer yet). If Succeeded gave me the channel, I could cut out all the observer crap, and just do: • CreateChannel(); • Proceed(); • wait for Succeeded or Failed.
See also the discussion on the mailing list in thread "On spec additions to allow a really simple IM API". If we're enhancing channel-requesting, we should probably do Bug #28866 at the same time, to keep the number of "compatibility levels" manageable.
One way to do that would to add this signal on the ChannelRequest object: SucceededWithChannel (o: Connection, o: Channel) If the spec guarantees that this signal is fired *before* Succeeded() (if implemented) we should be good. Clients understanding the new signal will be done once any of the sig has been fired and old clients will continue to rely on Succeeded().
(In reply to comment #2) > One way to do that would to add this signal on the ChannelRequest object: > SucceededWithChannel (o: Connection, o: Channel) Yes, exactly, but: (In reply to comment #1) > If we're enhancing channel-requesting, we should probably do Bug #28866 at the > same time, to keep the number of "compatibility levels" manageable. My plan is that when we do Bug #28866 ((Create|Ensure)ChannelWithMetadata, although I might rename Metadata to Hints), we add SucceededWithChannel at the same time, and guarantee that any implementation of the former will implement the latter. Then, tp_account_request_ensure_and_observe() would call EnsureChannelWithMetadata, even if the set of metadata is empty; if that method call succeeds, the client knows that it can expect to see SucceededWithChannel.
(In reply to comment #3) > Then, tp_account_request_ensure_and_observe() would call > EnsureChannelWithMetadata, even if the set of metadata is empty; if that method > call succeeds, the client knows that it can expect to see SucceededWithChannel. That's exactly what I had in mind as well :)
I have a spec branch and a proof of concept implementation of this. See https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=28866#c3
Should SucceededWithChannel include the properties of the Connection and the Channel?
I think everyone agrees that this bug and Bug #28866 should be closed simultaneously, so let's move all discussion to that bug. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 28866 ***
Use of freedesktop.org services, including Bugzilla, is subject to our Code of Conduct. How we collect and use information is described in our Privacy Policy.