After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 661117 - Provide a generic "Other" account type for popular generic protocols
Provide a generic "Other" account type for popular generic protocols
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Product: gnome-online-accounts
Classification: Core
Component: general
unspecified
Other Linux
: Normal enhancement
: ---
Assigned To: GNOME Online Accounts maintainer(s)
GNOME Online Accounts maintainer(s)
Depends on:
Blocks: 675749 692736 696281
 
 
Reported: 2011-10-06 19:27 UTC by Patryk Zawadzki
Modified: 2013-03-22 13:53 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---



Description Patryk Zawadzki 2011-10-06 19:27:14 UTC
The idea is to provide an "other XMPP provider" for Jabber and XMPP, an "other mail provider" for IMAP/POP3/SMTP and an "other calendar provider" for—well—calendars, webcal et al.

As we're never going to provide a dedicated solution for each possible server providing any of the above features, we can just try to cover the generic cases where people fill in their provider's details. As these would all have a single well-defined purpose, the UI can be kept simple and apps like Empathy and Evolution can easily handle the accounts.
Comment 1 David Zeuthen (not reading bugmail) 2011-10-06 19:39:43 UTC
Sounds good to me. And as mentioned on d-d-l earlier today I already have code for doing this for IMAP and SMTP - see

 http://people.freedesktop.org/~david/gen-mail-1.png
 http://people.freedesktop.org/~david/gen-mail-2.png
 http://people.freedesktop.org/~david/gen-mail-3.png
 http://people.freedesktop.org/~david/gen-mail-4.png

From a technical point of view

 - we will only support password authentication and we will store
   the password in the keyring

 - we will add a new .PasswordBased interface, similar to

   http://developer.gnome.org/goa/unstable/gdbus-org.gnome.OnlineAccounts.OAuthBased.html
   http://developer.gnome.org/goa/unstable/gdbus-org.gnome.OnlineAccounts.OAuth2Based.html

   but just with a GetPassword() method. Like e.g.

    http://developer.gnome.org/goa/unstable/gdbus-org.gnome.OnlineAccounts.OAuthBased.html#gdbus-method-org-gnome-OnlineAccounts-OAuthBased.GetAccessToken

   we will log usage of GetPassword().

 - we should verify that the stored credentials work whenever
   Account.EnsureCredentials() are passed - this includes
   connecting to the endpoint and using the protocol (e.g.
   for IMAP, it means doing the LOGIN command). We should
   also validate TLS certs, if any.

   We could either just write a mini-client for this (for
   IMAP it's very simple). For XMPP, I don't know, maybe
   we should use Telepathy for this. Dunno.
Comment 2 David Zeuthen (not reading bugmail) 2011-10-10 14:38:43 UTC
Btw, we should also ask the user for his email address as the first step - and from there figure out the IMAP/SMTP servers from the same database as Thunderbird (and I think, Evolution nowadays) is using.
Comment 3 Guillaume Desmottes 2011-11-07 09:37:07 UTC
(In reply to comment #1)
>    For XMPP, I don't know, maybe we should use Telepathy for this. Dunno.

Of course you should.

We have 2 options here:

A) Just create the Telepathy account directly into mission-control using
tp-glib API (as empathy-accounts does). The password should be stored in
gnome-keyring directly using the same schema as Empathy's and it will just
work.

B) Expose the account properties in GOA using some standarised keys (bug
#653269) and feed them to Empathy's MC plugin.


B) is a bit of extra work and add an extra layer but is more coherent with the
way GOA is currently working.
Comment 4 Guillaume Desmottes 2011-11-07 09:54:49 UTC
Thinking about it ( https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=653269#c12 ) I think B) is indeed the way go to.
Comment 5 Debarshi Ray 2013-02-14 19:14:16 UTC
I am not exactly sure what is the objective of this bug. If it is about taking a yes/no decision about whether we want to support generic protocols -- IMAP/SMTP, XMPP, etc., then I think the answer is "yes".

Now, instead of cluttering this single bug with patches for all the protocols, lets do them in their separate bugs. All existing requests related to generic protocols now depend on this bug. (Assuming that this one was about deciding whether to do so or not.)

Some days ago, I started working on a IMAP/SMTP provider (see 692736) based on the code that David had written earlier.

So can we close this as RESOLVED FIXED?
Comment 6 Debarshi Ray 2013-03-22 13:53:40 UTC
3.8 has a IMAP / SMTP provider (see bug 692736), and 3.10 will have providers for XMPP, IRC, etc. (see bug 696281).

Assuming that this bug was about making a policy decision about supporting such providers, I am marking this as RESOLVED FIXED. Lets use the specific bugs for tracking the patches to add each provider.