Re: SecretAgent.GetSecrets() return value

[Dan Williams <dcbw redhat com>]

On Sun, 2011-09-04 at 20:16 +0100, Daniel Drake wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 8:12 PM, Sascha Silbe <silbe activitycentral com> wrote:
> > I'd argue that Sugar shouldn't store the secrets at all but rather let
> > NetworkManager take care of that.
> 
> I agree, and this is exactly how my code works. That is unrelated to
> the issue at hand. A SecretAgent implementation is still required for
> telling NM those secrets in the first place, so the question still
> stands.

Not sure I follow this...  you shouldn't need a secret agent if all that
the UI is doing is Update() and AddConnection().  A secret agent is only
required if there are any agent-provided secrets (ie, some secret has
the flag AGENT_OWNED).  If you let NM handle all secrets then no secret
agent should be required; initial secrets get to NM via the
Connection.Update() call, which shouldn't require a secret agent (as
long as all secrets are not AGENT_OWNED).

Dan