On Sat, Sep 11, 2004 at 06:21:00AM -0400, praveen kandikuppa wrote: > Thanks for your input, I have a few questions and comments though. A couple comments on the Gaim side of things. First, why is there a separate evogaimremote? The Gaim side is functionality that shouldn't have to be considered evolution-specific. Furthermore, you make the assumption in the code that the user will have evolution-data-server, which will very often not be the case. Also, if you can follow the Gaim coding conventions, that'd be great. Indentation levels, naming conventions, line length, Doxygen comment styles, using our debug API instead of glib's or printfs where appropriate, static functions where appropriate, etc. Thanks. Mainly, I just don't see a need for evo-specific code in there. It can be done in a more abstract way. Remember that for code to be accepted into Gaim, it must be written with other platforms and programs in mind. We've been working hard at tearing out the platform-specific and UI-specific bindings in the code there. We don't want to take a step back. You're also going to run into a problem real soon in gaim. We're redoing the status API (based off of Galago), and it will be very incompatible with your current work. The packets, for instance, will have to change format, and operations aren't going to work the same way. There will be a lot more data to convey as well. The status rewrite is not ready yet, and I don't think it's in a state where development can be done off of it, but just a heads up. I see a lot of rewrite work in libgaim-remote that I'm not sure is needed, like replacing structs with ints and such. Why is it now multi-threaded? This could surely be done differently. Christian -- Christian Hammond <> The Galago Project chipx86 gnupdate org <> http://galago.sourceforge.net/ You can't have everything...where would you put it?
Attachment:
pgpFU9rBB0PG7.pgp
Description: PGP signature