Re: [SyncEvolution] device template naming
On Mon, 2010-03-22 at 10:20 +0000, Jussi Kukkonen wrote:
Chen, Congwu wrote:
> Jussi Kukkonen wrote:
>> I'm currently using the first part of device template fingerprint as the
>> name. That is currently not very user friendly but I'm not sure what
>> would be the right way fix that: Is there a reason why the "first
>> fingerprint" couldn't be 'Nokia 7210' instead of
'nokia_7210c'?
> We had discussions about this, sorry for forgetting to implement this. I will
> do this. So you can get both 'device name' and 'template name' from
the
> DBus server.
I tried to use this but I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do... I don't
see any new properties. Are you embedding both pieces of data in the
fingerPrint? How do I find out the exact device model if syncevolution
knows it?
... which we don't know at the moment.
Think of a situation where you've added several S40 phones as
supported models.
That's indeed the key point. Suppose we have a config template for
device "Foo Bar" (fingerPrint = Foo Bar, with or without underscore -
not sure what the current state is). Now we find a device which uses
exactly the same config. Should we add it to that config ("extend
fingerPrint") or add a second template ("new template")?
Advantage of "extend fingerPrint": less templates on disk, less data to
transfer via D-Bus, small list of configs to choose from in GUI
Disadvantage of "extend fingerPrint": as soon we have more than one
model, the first entry can no longer be a simple "Manufacturer Model"
string.
For example, suppose we have "fingerPrint = Nokia 7120c, Nokia N85".
I would find it confusing to have a "Nokia N85" and then being told by
the GUI tells me that "we think you have a Nokia 7120c".
We could go for "fingerPrint = Nokia, Nokia 7120c, Nokia N85", but that
then rules out including compatible phones from other vendors (thus
leading to a mixture of "extend fingerPrint" and "new template").
Anything beyond that ("Nokia-compatible") is not suitable because it
wouldn't be translated.
--
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.