From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0143038685207931711==" MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Denis Kenzior Subject: Re: RFC: Ubuntu Touch, MMS, and Provisioning Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 11:52:04 -0600 Message-ID: <53176444.1040301@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <531760EF.6040203@jolla.com> List-Id: To: ofono@ofono.org --===============0143038685207931711== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Slava, > A couple of examples. > > Suppose, we have a UI that allows the user to switch between "Automatic" > and "Custom" MMS or GPRS settings. One of the ways to implement that > would be to create a new context marked as "manual" and allow the user > to edit it. The old context remains but it's marked as "automatic" or > whatever. Manual context has a precedence over the automatic one. > Switching back to automatic means destroying the "manual" context or > marking it as "disabled". All that stuff gets saved to the ofono > SIM-specific gprs file so that these context properties don't get lost > after swapping SIMs. That sounds awful from a user perspective. I don't see why you need to = store these attributes inside oFono. Just let the user edit the = existing context and re-run your provisioning application when the user = makes the decision to switch back to 'automatic'. Or better yet, get a = decent provisioning database so that the user isn't asked for this at all. > > Suppose, we have a different connection management system, which shows > the entire list of available access points to the user and allows to > choose which one to use. The selected context needs to be marked as > "default" or something. Again, this context property needs to survive > SIM swap. With a custom context property that's pretty easy to do. Feel free to suggest something, maybe a Priority attribute. But then = again, a better provisioning database or a dedicated provisioning UI = would be way nicer from a user perspective. > > Every project may have requirements that are more or less unique, often > influenced by the UI design. There's no need to push support for unique > project specific requirements into the common code, there's nothing here > to argue about. It's a matter of whether you want to make ofono a bit > more usable as is or you are fine with it being cloned and heavily > modified for each particular project. > Knock yourself out then :) Regards, -Denis --===============0143038685207931711==--