Re: [Evolution-hackers] IM entry fields patch

On Wed, Nov 26, 2003 at 12:14:41AM -0600, Chris Toshok wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-11-25 at 00:41, Christian Hammond wrote:
> This is pretty close to what everyone seems to have independently
> decided would be the best layout :)  I think it'd look a bit tighter
> with the add/edit/remove buttons over on the right hand side of the
> table, though.  What do you think?

Sounds good. Glade makes that a very easy fix :) However, I just got
home from a very long day of babysitting a 3 year old little sister,
so I'm going to rest a bit. I'll have a new patch tonight :)

> >
> This looks good and should go in.  I've been thinking, though, that
> LIST_FIELD might not be the best way to represent the im screen names,
> since it lock you into 1 set of parameters per list.  What I mean is,
> EContact won't let you do:
> X-AIM;TYPE=WORK:toshokwork
> X-AIM;TYPE=HOME:toshokhome
> Instead you're forced to do:
> X-AIM:toshokwork;toshokhome
> with no metadata per screen name.
> so I'm thinking of changing the im fields to be MULTI_ELEM_STR_FIELD,
> and add synthetic E_CONTACT_IM_<protocol>_HOME and
> E_CONTACT_IM_<protocol>_WORK fields to get the different sublists, and
> maybe HOME_1, HOME_1, and HOME_3 (same with WORK_) for the individual
> items, ala the EMAIL fields.
> how's this sound?  it shouldn't affect your code too much - an
> additional field in the table/editor that lists whether or not it's a
> home or work screen name, and a little additional code.

Sure. Do you want me to modify libebook so that we're using
MULTI_ELEM_STR_FIELD, or do you have plans to do that already?


Christian Hammond         <>  The GNUpdate Project
chipx86 gnupdate org      <>
   Dr. Livingston?
   Dr. Livingston I. Presume?

Attachment: pgpJgpzmiVKrJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]