Hi Denis,

> Hi Slava,
>
> A gentle reminder to please not top-post on this mailing list.
>
> On 01/16/2014 02:52 PM, Slava Monich wrote:
>> Hi Denis,
>>
>> Sorry to bother you, but I don't quite get the logic. There's something
>> that needs to be done in case if ALL provisioning plugins have run and
>> failed. How could that be a part of a provisioning plugin? They all have
>> already run and failed by definition of the problem.
>
> We do; we create an empty context to signify that provisioning has 
> failed.  I do realize you mean well, but you're trying to wildly guess 
> (at least that is how I read the commit description) and breaking 
> existing behavior.
>

How can you tell an empty context created by a provisioning plugin from 
an empty context created by gprs.c after all provisioning plugins have 
failed? Or from the access point edited by the user in such a way that 
it looks exactly like the empty context created in gprs.c? You can't. 
They are all identical. Empty context is not a reliable indication of a 
provisioning failure.

A better, unambiguous indication would be to not create any contexts at 
all. Actually, I was assuming that it was the case and was quite 
surprised to find out that it was ofono creating the default context.

It's surely not breaking anything for Jolla. It would only improve 
chances of GPRS access to work out of the box. But of course in theory 
it may break something on some other platform. Any change, even an 
obvious bug fix can break existing behavior.

Finally, about 15% of all GPRS Internet access points in the world are 
called "internet" and have no user name or password. It's by far the 
most common use case. So it's not a wild guess at all. It's real life 
experience.

Regards,
-Slava