Re: [Evolution-hackers] New 'eclient' branch in eds
- From: Matthew Barnes <mbarnes redhat com>
- To: Milan Crha <mcrha redhat com>
- Cc: evolution-hackers gnome org
- Subject: Re: [Evolution-hackers] New 'eclient' branch in eds
- Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2011 13:58:50 -0400
On Fri, 2011-04-22 at 19:03 +0200, Milan Crha wrote:
> Yup, though it'll be (internally - aka in D-Bus) still a signal. This
> request of ECredentials object seems strange to me, because I understand
> the ECredentials as something which actually holds credentials, not
> something what is asking for it something else. Not talking that as a
> real object it adds, from my point of view, unnecessary overhead and
> complications from simple signal callback.
ECredentials might not be the best name for it, and that may be
confusing the matter a little. I've been trying to think of a better
name. EAuthenticator, EAuthenticationPolicy... nothing so far has
really sounded right. I'm open to suggestions.
The idea though is that what we do now in e-passwords.c -- namely
checking GNOME Keyring for a password and building and displaying our
own password dialog to the user -- is *one possible* implementation of
that simple abstract "get_password" interface that you could pass when
creating EClient objects.
If MeeGo, for example, wanted to handle authentication in a completely
different way -- perhaps not using GNOME Keyring at all or using their
own authentication widget (I'm just making this up) -- they could write
their own implementation and pass *that* when creating EClient objects,
all without disturbing the public API at all.
Maybe ECredentialsProvider is a better name after all. I don't know
yet. But does what I'm trying to get at make sense?
Maybe it would help if I wrote something like this for Camel, so I could
point to something concrete and not be so hand-wavy about it.
[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]