GNOME Bugzilla – Bug 612461
Deal with new butterfly using the conference interface
Last modified: 2010-03-11 11:49:35 UTC
I've implemented the Conference channel interface in butterfly, so 1-1 chats appear without the group interface, as they should have all along. This isn't actually merged yet, but hopefully will soon. I had to make a few changes to Empathy to fix things. There are a fair few MSN 1-1 chat workarounds in the code that can be removed in time. For now, we should be nice to both old and new butterfly though. http://git.collabora.co.uk/?p=user/jonny/empathy.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/butterfly-conference-misc The commit messages should explain everything if something is not clear. It's pretty important that this gets into the stable release, if we want to continue supporting newer butterflies.
When you upgrade an MSN 1-1 chat to a multi-user chat in butterfly, it moves from [ChannelType=TEXT, TargetHandleType=CONTACT] to [ChannelType=TEXT, TargetHandleType=NONE]. What's the rational of this difference? Can't we unify that? Except that looks good, assuming pmuc still work fine with Gabble. Could you please open a bug about old-style butterfly that could be removed once we decide that we don't support it any more?
(In reply to comment #1) > When you upgrade an MSN 1-1 chat to a multi-user chat in butterfly, it > moves from [ChannelType=TEXT, TargetHandleType=CONTACT] to > [ChannelType=TEXT, TargetHandleType=NONE]. > > What's the rational of this difference? Can't we unify that? Unify to what? I'm assuming you are asking why TargetHandleType is not ROOM, like in gabble, no? In gabble, the upgraded (P)MUCs have names (the 78358734587345873..89349@chat.google.com). There are no names of MUCs in butterfly, or in MSN itself, because the switchboards move from being 1-1 to multi-user so easily. I don't see any alternative for what you quoted from my commit message. THT=NONE is really the only way. I also don't think this is quite as bad as you appear to think?
I was just curious about the reason of this difference. That makes sense to me. Please amend one commit msg to include the bug number and feel free to merge.
(In reply to comment #3) > I was just curious about the reason of this difference. That makes sense to me. Okay, cool. > Please amend one commit msg to include the bug number and feel free to merge. Great, thanks. I amended and merged. Thanks for your review. I opened bug #612555 regarding the removal of the old butterfly workarounds.