On Mo, 2011-08-29 at 15:12 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> 1) In the case that we have no PnPInformation info we have...
> deviceName = User-modifiable name
> peerName = User-modifiable name
Better leave the peerName unset. It's semantic will be "we know for sure
that this device is a "<vendor>[ <product>]".
You decided to not implement it like this, did you?
From your patch:
// This is the user-modifiable
device name. Could be shown in GUIs, for example
+ // This can be either the user-modifiable device name, vendor
+ // name, or product name (vendor + model). This depends on
+ // whether the device supports the Bluetooth Device ID profile
+ // and, if so, whether we have the model in the lookup table.
Was it simply easier to implement this way or do you prefer that
semantic of "peerName" in a template reported by the D-Bus server?
My concern is that if the D-Bus server always reports a value, the D-Bus
client won't be able to determine whether it has reliable information
about the manufacturer and model.
Best Regards, Patrick Ohly
The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although
I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way
represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak
on behalf of Intel on this matter.