ubuntu-phone team mailing list archive

[Matthias Gehre <M.Gehre@xxxxxx>]

Hi,

I'd like to go for 1. maximum integration 2. maximum feature support.
It's not clear to me, if telepathy support all features that the WhatsApp
protocol implements,
thus I would opt for making a telepathy plugin for WhatsApp and making an
application thats is specifically designed for the WhatsApp telepathy
plugin.
This will allow us to to let the user choose if the want to use one of the
multi-messengers or the specific whatsapp client.

And while we are talking about integration: It seems that "online accounts"
is the way to go. Is this also supported on the desktop?

Best wishes,
Matthias



2013/3/4 Gustavo Pichorim Boiko <gustavo.boiko@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

> Hi Sid
>
> On 03/04/2013 10:20 AM, Sid Payton wrote:
> >
> > Hello Renato,
> > I'm working with Mathias on this project. I thought about integrating
> > this app into a standard application like telepathy as well and
> > thought of this as the ultimate goal at first as well.
> > But here are a few things that need to be considered and resolved:
> >
> > - Most people people would expect a standalone whats-app app linke
> > they know from other devices (this will resolve it self after some time)
> >
> You would still be able to achieve that using telepathy. For example,
> the telephony application is right now only handling Telepathy requests
> that are meant for a telepathy-ofono account. We could do the same in a
> standalone application for WhatsApp.
>
> The benefit here is that in platforms where we want the communication to
> be done in one single app (for example, using Empathy on the desktop),
> this would be doable in a very straightforward way.
> >
> > - people would geht confused which way they used to communicate (chat
> > or Whats app which I belive a simple mark up wouldn't resolve). The
> > people on the other side would get annoyed because of receiving
> > answers on another service, which they would blame Ubuntu on.
> >
> As Renato already said, this is in part fixed by have a well designed
> app that clearly indicates what communication path is being used, and
> for subsequent messages, using the previously used method probably does
> the job. The important thing is to make it explicit to the user which
> communication service is used to send the messages.
>
> > But non the less, I belive that a unified massaging service is the
> > higher goal. After all wie just want to communicate with our friends
> > and family the cheapest and fastest way possible and don't want to
> > care which app I have to use. I also think that the messaging
> > indicator is doing this job already very well.
> >
> So, if we go for a Telepathy-based implementation, it would be very easy
> to add support for that in the messaging menu. The telephony application
> has a daemon that handles that, it would be just a matter of adding
> multiple accounts support to it.
>
> The same for the application, it is just a matter of having proper
> designs for handling multiple accounts and a few tweaks in the logic side.
>
> > What do you thing? Are my concerns justified or can you think of a
> > solution?
> >
> I see your point about having it as a separate application, but over the
> time I have seen that people get used to this. For example, in the past
> people used to have one application for each messaging service (MSN,
> Icq, Yahoo, AIM, etc), and that didn't stop multi-protocol clients to
> become popular (Kopete, Pidgin, Trillian, Meebo, etc). I think it is
> just a matter of doing it right.
>
> I am the current developer of the telephony application, maybe we should
> talk a bit more about the possibilities on implementing that?
>
> Cheers
>
> Boiko
>
>
> --
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-phone
> Post to     : ubuntu-phone@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-phone
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>