Bug 605023 - IM Status Plugin patch for Pidgin support
IM Status Plugin patch for Pidgin support
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Product: rhythmbox
Classification: Other
Component: Plugins (other)
unspecified
Other Linux
: Normal enhancement
: ---
Assigned To: RhythmBox Maintainers
RhythmBox Maintainers
:
: 369754 (view as bug list)
Depends on:
Blocks:
  Show dependency tree
 
Reported: 2009-12-19 21:38 UTC by Mohamad Elrashidin Sajeli
Modified: 2010-01-03 08:35 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---


Attachments
Patch for IM Status Rhythmbox Plugin to support Pidgin (2.28 KB, patch)
2009-12-19 21:38 UTC, Mohamad Elrashidin Sajeli
committed Details | Diff | Review

Description Mohamad Elrashidin Sajeli 2009-12-19 21:38:02 UTC
Created attachment 150079 [details] [review]
Patch for IM Status Rhythmbox Plugin to support Pidgin

Enhancement for the IM status plugin for Rhythmbox, adding support for Pidgin.
There's one problem, that is Pidgin must be running before plugin is activated. Pidgin must be running all the time while plugin is activated. Otherwise, the Pidgin's IM status will default to crap (not actually crap, it's the first audio information that Pidgin receives).

My first patch submission, please do correct me if anything here is wrong.
Comment 1 Jonathan Matthew 2009-12-20 06:51:06 UTC
Patch looks OK to me.  Does pigdin have any kind of dbus interface stability policy?  I looked briefly but couldn't find one.
Comment 2 Mohamad Elrashidin Sajeli 2009-12-20 07:07:55 UTC
Could you explain more about the interface stability policy you mentioned? A bit confused here. Is it in terms of the pidgin's connection to the dbus? Or maybe pidgin's change of the dbus API?
Comment 3 Jonathan Matthew 2009-12-20 07:13:25 UTC
I want to know if pidgin has any kind of policy about changing their dbus API.
Comment 4 Mohamad Elrashidin Sajeli 2009-12-20 08:11:34 UTC
I searched around for it, but found none that literally state their policy on their dbus API changing policy. But I found something that may give a clue about their tendency to change the dbus API for pidgin.

According to a quote at http://developer.pidgin.im/ticket/5812, the dbus bindings are derived via some python scripts from their GObjects. It seems that their dbus binding will change with respect to their GObjectification. If there's modification with respect to the GObjects, the dbus binding will follow accordingly.
Comment 5 Jonathan Matthew 2009-12-20 09:32:31 UTC
Oh well, they can hardly do worse than empathy did..  One last thing: we prefer attributing patches by full name.
Comment 6 Mohamad Elrashidin Sajeli 2009-12-20 11:01:35 UTC
Attributing patches by full name. I don't have any idea about that. Please excuse my lack of experience. Can you please advice me on how to do that? I'll submit the corrected version of the patch soon after that.
Comment 7 Jonathan Matthew 2009-12-20 21:04:56 UTC
Just change your bugzilla user info to the name by which you'd like to be credited.
Comment 8 Mohamad Elrashidin Sajeli 2009-12-21 04:51:34 UTC
LOL, so sorry, been thinking too much. Okay, done.
Comment 9 Jonathan Matthew 2009-12-23 11:25:13 UTC
Thanks.  I've committed your patch to git master.
Comment 10 Mohamad Elrashidin Sajeli 2009-12-23 13:29:24 UTC
Welcome, and thanks again.
Comment 11 Mohamad Elrashidin Sajeli 2009-12-30 06:27:29 UTC
Just an update, I received this from Elliott Sales de Andrade (qulogic), one of Pidgin Developers, in reply to my mail.

"The DBus API follows the C API. As such, it will follow the conventions we have for API/ABI compatibility. That is, no API is added until a minor version update (2.X.0) and no API is removed until a major version update (X.0.0). API might change meaning slightly, but generally only if there's a real problem.

In any case, the saved status API is so large and complicated (we are aware it needs simplification) that it probably won't change until 3.0.0. But there is no specific plan, so I cannot say whether there will be significant changes in the next 6 months. It depends on when the code is ready to be used or not."

So, I thought this would clarify things at least. For the 6 months time frame mentioned, it is a time frame that I stated in my mail to him, not out of the blue.
Comment 12 Jonathan Matthew 2009-12-30 06:37:33 UTC
Thanks for following up on that.  I'm happy as long as they have an API compatibility policy that doesn't result in random breakage because someone decided to add a new parameter to a method one day.
Comment 13 Jonathan Matthew 2010-01-03 08:35:21 UTC
*** Bug 369754 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.