Re: Matrix as a replacement for Telepathy

[Matthew Hodgson <matthew matrix org>]

On 25/08/2017 16:55, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On the whole, I quite like the idea of switching from Telepathy to 
> libpurple. Much more than assuming a one-protocol-to-rule-them-all 
> approach.

Just to be clear, Matrix is *not* trying to be a 
one-protocol-to-rule-them-all, any more than libpurple is trying to be 
one-API-to-rule-them-all.  Matrix is just doing the same thing: 
abstracting multiple networks behind a single API.  The difference to 
libpurple is that the abstraction happens serverside by default rather 
than clientside.

(Although we do have matrix-appservice-purple, which uses libpurple 
serverside as a way to bridge to other networks, a bit like bitlbee but 
talking Matrix on the frontend rather than IRC).

(And we also have matrix-purple, which is a PRPL for libpurple that 
speaks Matrix :D)

Personally, I would really like to have a local comms API abstraction, 
similar to the one that telepathy provided, but able to support modern 
protocols - i.e. some daemon which exposes a simple API for multiple 
apps to leverage when they want to send/receive messages/calls/etc.  As 
I mentioned earlier, we need it for the Librem 5 phone if nothing else 
(just as Maemo drove the development of telepathy, iirc).

Neither Matrix nor libpurple provides this API out of the box currently. 
 So some replacement for telepathy probably is required, and if it 
spoke both Matrix & libpurple & some native protocols on the backend 
then so much the better.  Meanwhile, apps themselves can link against 
libpurple matrix-*-sdk today according to taste, if they want to use 
communication behaviour without relying on anything provided by the OS.

M

--
Matthew Hodgson
Matrix.org