[Adium-devl] [Adium-svn] rev 22094 - in trunk: Frameworks/Adium Framework/Source Resources

[Evan Schoenberg]

On Jan 2, 2008, at 1:26 AM, Peter Hosey wrote:

> On Jan 01, 2008, at 23:19:37, Evan Schoenberg wrote:
>> Two AIAccount objects with the same UID and service could exist …
>
> Is there a good reason to allow this in the first place?

The best use case I can think of involves working around situations  
involving proxy servers, particularly ones specific to IM accounts...  
one might have two 'copies' of an account, identical except for their  
proxy settings.  On the other hand, I'm not really sure why any proxy  
setup would be specific to IM accounts; using OS X's location system  
might handle this fine for 99% of people.

I'm not going to fight hard to keep it, although I'm sure removing it  
will garner at least a couple complaints.

>
>
>>> I do notice that in r22005, “account "foo at bar.com"” returns an  
>>> account rather than raising an error, which is certainly a bug.  
>>> But that's different: the service is missing from the reference,  
>>> which should be an error whenever the account specifier is ambiguous
>>
>> I don't understand what you're pointing out here.
>
> Create two accounts with the same UID, foo at bar.com. Then try this  
> script:
>
> 	tell app "Adium" to account "foo at bar.com"
>
> Surprise: It returns an account. Of course, it's not guaranteed to  
> be one account or the other, since you weren't specific enough.
>
> What it *should* do (and doesn't, as of this old rev) is raise an  
> error.
>
> The same could be said of “account "foo at bar.com" of service  
> "Jabber"” for multiple Jabber accounts with that UID, if we want to  
> continue allowing that sort of tomfoolery.

Oh, I see.  Whereas now account "127" or the like is the form that  
doesn't use an identifier.  I think "account with name 'foo at bar.com'"  
is a better thing to enforce, anyways.

-Evan