annotate src/protocols/simple/sipmsg.h @ 12645:fc28451f5d96

[gaim-migrate @ 14983] SF Patch #1314512 from Sadrul (who has a patch for everything) "This patch introduces a flag for protocol plugins that support offline messages (like Y!M and ICQ). This was encouraged by the following conversation: <sadrul> should offline buddies be listed/enabled in the send-to menu? <rekkanoryo> i would think only for protocols that support offline messaging, if it's indicated that the buddy is offline -- <snip> -- <Bleeter> sadrul: personally, I'd like to see a 'supports offline' flag of some description <Bleeter> one could then redirect (via plugins) through email or alternative methods <Bleeter> just a thought <Paco-Paco> yeah, that sounds like a reasonble thing to have This patch uses this flag to disable the buddies in the send-to menu who are offline and the protocol doesn't support offline messages." I made this make the label insensitive instead of the whole menuitem. This should address SimGuy's concerns about inconsistency (i.e. you could create a conversation with someone via the buddy list that you couldn't create via the Send To menu). I also hacked up some voodoo to show the label as sensitive when moused-over, as that looks better (given the label-insensitive thing is itself a hack). I think this works quite well. BUG NOTE: This makes more obvious an existing bug. The Send To menu isn't updated when buddies sign on or off or change status (at least under some circumstances). We need to fix that anyway, so I'm not going to let it hold up this commit. Switching tabs will clear it up. I'm thinking we just might want to build the contents of that menu when it is selected. That would save us a mess of inefficient signal callbacks that update the Send To menus in open windows all the time. AIM NOTE: This assumes that AIM can't offline message. That's not strictly true. You can message invisible users on AIM. However, by design, we can't tell when a user is invisible without resorting to dirty hackery. In practice, this isn't a problem, as you can still select the AIM user from the menu. And really, how often will you be choosing the Invisible contact, rather than the user going Invisible in the middle of a conversation or IMing you while they're Invisible? JABBER NOTE: This assumes that Jabber can always offline message. This isn't strictly true. Sadrul said: I have updated Jabber according to this link which seems to talk about how to determine the existence offline-message support in a server: http://www.jabber.org/jeps/jep-0013.html#discover However, jabber.org doesn't seem to send the required info. So I am not sure about it. He later said: I talked to Nathan and he said offline message support is mostly assumed for most jabber servers. GTalk doesn't yet support it, but they are working on it. So I have made jabber to always return TRUE. If there is truly no way to detect offline messaging capability, then this is an acceptable solution. We could special case Google Talk because of its popularity, and remove that later. It's probably not worth it though. MSN NOTE: This assumes that MSN can never offline message. That's effectively true, but to be technically correct, MSN can offline message if there's already a switchboard conversation open with a user. We could write an offline_message function in the MSN prpl to detect that, but it'd be of limited usefulness, especially given that under most circumstances (where this might matter), the switchboard connection will be closed almost immediately. CVS NOTE: I'm writing to share a tragic little story. I have a PC that I use for Gaim development. One day, I was writing a commit message on it, when all of a suddent it went berserk. The screen started flashing, and the whole commit message just disappeared. All of it. And it was a good commit message! I had to cram and rewrite it really quickly. Needless to say, my rushed commit message wasn't nearly as good, and I blame the PC for that. Seriously, though, what kind of version control system loses your commit message on a broken connection to the server? Stupid! committer: Tailor Script <[e-mail]>

/**
 * @file sipmsg.h
 * 
 * gaim
 *
 * Copyright (C) 2005, Thomas Butter <[e-mail]>
 * 
 * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
 * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
 * the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
 * (at your option) any later version.
 *
 * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
 * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
 * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
 * GNU General Public License for more details.
 *
 * You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
 * along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software
 * Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA  02111-1307  USA
 */

#ifndef _GAIM_SIPMSG_H
#define _GAIM_SIPMSG_H

#include <glib.h>

struct sipmsg {
	int response; /* 0 means request, otherwise response code */
	gchar *method;
	gchar *target;
	GSList *headers;
	int bodylen;
	gchar *body;
};

struct siphdrelement {
	gchar *name;
	gchar *value;
};

struct sipmsg *sipmsg_parse_msg(gchar *msg);
struct sipmsg *sipmsg_parse_header(gchar *header);
void sipmsg_add_header(struct sipmsg *msg, gchar *name, gchar *value);
void sipmsg_free(struct sipmsg *msg);
gchar *sipmsg_find_header(struct sipmsg *msg, gchar *name);
void sipmsg_remove_header(struct sipmsg *msg, gchar *name);
void sipmsg_print(struct sipmsg *msg);
char *sipmsg_to_string(struct sipmsg *msg);
#endif /* _GAIM_SIMPLE_H */