Re: One more question about device activation (trunk)

[Helmut Schaa <hschaa suse de>]

Am Sa 29 Sep 2007 07:10:59 CEST schrieb Dan Williams <dcbw redhat com>:

> On Fri, 2007-09-28 at 08:54 +0200, Helmut Schaa wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > just stumbled across an issue while playing around with wireless connections
> > in KNM.
> >
> > Why does NM require specific_object to be set when connecting to a wireless
> > network? Shouldn't the wireless and security settings suffice? What  
> >  if I want
> > to connect to a hidden network where no AP is available yet?
>
> The reason for specific_object is this...  A connection doesn't
> necessarily _have_ to correspond to a specific AP.  Therefore, the
> choice is left up to the user client which specific AP to apply the
> connection to (as long as that AP is still compatible with the
> connection).  For example, say you have two APs with the same SSID, but
> one is bg and one is b-only.  Maybe the applet wants to connection to
> the bg one specifically to get higher speed, who knows.

But the setting "802-11-wireless" has a member "bssid". If the  
frontend wants to connect to a specific AP it should be sufficient to  
pass the AP's BSSID, not?

> That said, you've got a point with hidden networks.  We'll probably have
> to allow a null specific_object for wireless and regard specific_object
> as a hint only.

Right :)

> > In my opinion NM should (if no AP is specified) try to find one in   
> > its AP-list
> > which fits best the connection's settings and use this one (for hidden
> > networks of course no AP should be used). I think there was some code in NM
> > which had this behaviour before?
>
> Yes, this is how it should work.

Regards,
Helmut