Adding/Approving/Removing Contacts

[Francesco Nwokeka]

On Friday 01 April 2011 13:17:27 George Goldberg wrote:
> On 1 April 2011 12:06, George Kiagiadakis <kiagiadakis.george at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 1:56 PM, George Goldberg
> > 
> > <grundleborg at googlemail.com> wrote:
> >> On 1 April 2011 11:52, Olli Salli <olli.salli at collabora.co.uk> wrote:
> >> 
> >> <snip>
> >> 
> >>> The presence publication requests, as all other parts of the roster,
> >>> are fully state-recoverable. presencePublicationRequested in
> >>> particular signals that there is now a contact in allKnownContacts(),
> >>> which has its publishState() set to Ask. (They ask for you to publish
> >>> your presence to them, i.e. permission to see your presence). However,
> >>> don't assert on that or anything, because that would be racy: somebody
> >>> else might have approved or rejected the request already, or the
> >>> contact might even have rescinded their request - in which case you
> >>> shouldn't actually show your dialog.
> >>> 
> >>> Thus, in addition to listening to presencePublicationRequested(), you
> >>> should check the initial state after connecting to it, by looping over
> >>> allKnownContacts() and checking for any state = Ask contacts. These
> >>> would be in particular contacts that previously requested your
> >>> presence, perhaps when you were offline, or when you were connected to
> >>> the account earlier (maybe even with another client), but didn't
> >>> approve or reject the request then.
> >>> 
> >>> You can also recover the request message by using
> >>> Contact::publishStateMessage() in recent-ish tp-qt4 versions, on
> >>> protocols with such a concept anyway.
> >>> 
> >>> Now, always showing "hey, this person wants to be your friend" again
> >>> and again when you reconnect to the same account, if you chose to
> >>> ignore their request earlier, is obviously annoying. Thus, you need
> >>> some kind of local state to mark contacts as "I've seen their request,
> >>> and notified the user. I don't need to bug the user again unless they
> >>> actively want to reconsider people whose requests they've previously
> >>> ignored".
> >>> 
> >>> I implemented that annoyance prevention in the Kopete Telepathy
> >>> protocol plugin by immediately committing the new contacts discovered
> >>> thus as Kopete contacts, but showing them as "pending" and enabling
> >>> context menu actions to later approve and reject their request. I
> >>> wouldn't then show additional request dialogs even if the Telepathy
> >>> contact was discovered to be in publish state Ask, or getting a
> >>> presencePublicationRequested signal, until the Kopete contact had left
> >>> the "pending" state one way or another.
> >>> 
> >>> This is where nepomuk comes in. Whichever component listens for
> >>> incoming friend requests must record seeing a request somewhere. In
> >>> your case it would be most natural to store this in Nepomuk along with
> >>> the other data for that contact. Now, you could do this in the
> >>> approver, yes, but wouldn't that obfuscate the data flow a bit, with
> >>> the approver in addition to the nepomuk service trying to insert new
> >>> contact data into nepomuk? (Would that even be possible to do safely?)
> >>> 
> >>> Notably, the nepomuk service is already probably listening for changes
> >>> in allKnownContacts() on all connections, and doing similar initial
> >>> syncs of the contact list state in general when picking up new
> >>> connections. Handling the friend requests would therefore fall there
> >>> naturally from the Telepathy point of view.
> >> 
> >> I'm convinced :)
> > 
> > Me too, but what do we do before we have a working nepomuk service?
> 
> Ah good question... Since the first release is going to be
> nepomuk-free we need to do something temporary. Perhaps it could
> temporarily go in the contact list app for the first release, and then
> in the summer when we are fully nepomuk enabled it can move to the
> nepomuk service permanently?
> 
> --
> George

(stupid)Question: what about those users which don't use nepomuk? How will this be handled?

Francesco