YesNoOk
avatar

Metacontacts (Read 7722 times)

Started by As Hope Dies, April 28, 2006, 19:52:21

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this.
#1
Metacontacts |
April 28, 2006, 19:52:21
How I add/manage them?
Do I need to get the metacontacts plugin(wich is unavailable because of Miranda addons server problem)or there is some other way?
#2
Re: Metacontacts |
April 28, 2006, 20:20:26
How I add/manage them?
Do I need to get the metacontacts plugin(wich is unavailable because of Miranda addons server problem)or there is some other way?

Well, no metacontacts w/o the metacontacts plugin. The plugin acts as a pseudo protocol between the core and the real protocol plugins. So, yes, you need it.
__
Every program has at least one bug and can be shortened by at least one instruction -- from which, by induction, one can deduce that every program can be reduced to a single instruction that doesn't work.
My SMF-based forum fork
#3
Re: Metacontacts |
April 28, 2006, 20:38:22
How I add/manage them?
Do I need to get the metacontacts plugin(wich is unavailable because of Miranda addons server problem)or there is some other way?

Well, no metacontacts w/o the metacontacts plugin. The plugin acts as a pseudo protocol between the core and the real protocol plugins. So, yes, you need it.
Tnx for the info.
Anybody willing to attach the plugin here or provide a download link(because the only one I got from authors page is not working)?

 TIA!
#4
Re: Metacontacts |
April 28, 2006, 22:20:05
#5
Re: Metacontacts |
April 29, 2006, 17:55:32
#6
Re: Metacontacts |
April 29, 2006, 18:15:35
Sweet, tnx :)
I understand how to link two contacts together into a metacontact, but not how to choose what protocol will be used when msging  ???

Meta contacts decides which protocol will be used for sending messages. It usually uses the "most online" protocol - you can also change this by setting a default protocol or by using tabSRMMs metacontact support (it allows to select a protocol for sending messages and to override the default automatical protocol selection).
__
Every program has at least one bug and can be shortened by at least one instruction -- from which, by induction, one can deduce that every program can be reduced to a single instruction that doesn't work.
My SMF-based forum fork
#7
Re: Metacontacts |
September 04, 2006, 21:08:39
Is it possible to expand metacontacts (as in modern_CL)?
#8
Re: Metacontacts |
September 05, 2006, 04:56:24
__
Every program has at least one bug and can be shortened by at least one instruction -- from which, by induction, one can deduce that every program can be reduced to a single instruction that doesn't work.
My SMF-based forum fork
#9
Re: Metacontacts |
September 06, 2006, 19:03:45
Will it appears ever in future?
#10
Re: Metacontacts |
September 06, 2006, 19:19:15
__
Every program has at least one bug and can be shortened by at least one instruction -- from which, by induction, one can deduce that every program can be reduced to a single instruction that doesn't work.
My SMF-based forum fork
#11
Re: Metacontacts |
March 14, 2007, 14:03:29
Can you please tell why. This is not possible? This is very usefull feature. Please add this. I'll alway be on nicer then.
#12
Re: Metacontacts |
March 14, 2007, 14:22:22
Can you please tell why. This is not possible? This is very usefull feature. Please add this. I'll alway be on nicer then.

I never said its not possible. I just said I'am not going to add it, and that hasn't changed. So it's not gonna happen for clist_nicer. Never.

In my opinion, it is useless. I don't need such a feature, because when I use a metacontact (and I do use a lot of them), I use it, because I simply don't want to care about subcontacts, sub-protocols and all that mess. That's the very basic idea of a metacontact - if you still want to deal with the subcontacts, then why use metacontacts in the first place?
__
Every program has at least one bug and can be shortened by at least one instruction -- from which, by induction, one can deduce that every program can be reduced to a single instruction that doesn't work.
My SMF-based forum fork
#13
Re: Metacontacts |
July 25, 2007, 13:47:22
Nightwish, could you change clist_nicer to always show metacontact's own protocol status Icons in embedded dialogs, even if the option to show subcontacts icon instead of metacontacts' one is enabled?

The reason is that it is very confusing in e.g. the ignore list (and other embedded lists) to see the metacontact having the same icon as the subcontact, that makes it hard to differenciate who is who.

In the contact list this is not a problem because sub- and metacontact never show up at the same time
#14
Re: Metacontacts |
July 25, 2007, 14:42:34
Nightwish, could you change clist_nicer to always show metacontact's own protocol status Icons in embedded dialogs, even if the option to show subcontacts icon instead of metacontacts' one is enabled?

Yes, it's probably a good idea. I'll add this to the todo list :)
__
Every program has at least one bug and can be shortened by at least one instruction -- from which, by induction, one can deduce that every program can be reduced to a single instruction that doesn't work.
My SMF-based forum fork
#15
Re: Metacontacts |
January 20, 2009, 21:13:27
Nightwish, could you change clist_nicer to always show metacontact's own protocol status Icons in embedded dialogs, even if the option to show subcontacts icon instead of metacontacts' one is enabled?

Yes, it's probably a good idea. I'll add this to the todo list :)

Do you plan to implement it at some time or did you completly stopped the development?
#16
Re: Metacontacts |
January 20, 2009, 21:21:58
Nightwish, could you change clist_nicer to always show metacontact's own protocol status Icons in embedded dialogs, even if the option to show subcontacts icon instead of metacontacts' one is enabled?

Yes, it's probably a good idea. I'll add this to the todo list :)

Do you plan to implement it at some time or did you completly stopped the development?
It's stopped, sorry. I consider clist_nicer finished.

Regarding metacontacts - doesn't make sense to change anything at this time in any plugin as we do not yet know how well the new database engine (dbx_tree) with included metacontacts will be introduced as the default.
__
Every program has at least one bug and can be shortened by at least one instruction -- from which, by induction, one can deduce that every program can be reduced to a single instruction that doesn't work.
My SMF-based forum fork