Miranda IM

Page 138 of 151 FirstFirst ... 3888128136137138139140148 ... LastLast
Results 1,371 to 1,380 of 1506

Thread: Skype Protocol Discussion

  1. #1371
    Join Date
    April 2005
    Location
    Austria
    Posts
    207
    I have SkypeKit lying around here already, I even wrote some glue code already (haven't checked it in to the SVN repo though), but what's the big advantage of SkypeKit vs. Skype? In both cases, an executabe has to run in background. Ok, Skype.exe is really, really bloated and SkypeKit presumably uses less memory, but that's the only advantage.
    For my personal use, I'm better off with imo.im proxy, because it offloads everything to imo.im, hehehe...
    It's enough for me, as I only use instant messaging, but I understand that it's not enough for most users, as they want to use Voicechat, file transfers, etc.
    And from the point to trust: Skype and Skypekit both are encrypted, proprietary code where nobody knows what it's doing (maybe it contains some Spyware/Trojan horse and is spying on you all the time, who knows...? ;-) )
    So I feel safer in using imo.im where I know what information I'm submitting (yes, they can potentially read my messages, but at least the can't read my harddisk ;-) )
    And from the programmers point of view, SkypeKit has the disadvantage that it doesn't support the SKYPE API but has a totally different set of API, so I have to use my imo.im Proxy Skype API interpreter and translate Skype API calls to calls to the SkypeKit internal interface again to have a proper public interface available for Skype plugin. I'm still unsure if it's worth the effort...

    It seems to me that the extracted SKYLIB.DLL mentioned in the sypeopensource Blog-Entry contains the SKYPE API interpreter, therefore this may be a nice thing to work with as we wouldn't need to write a seperate SKYPE API interpreter in that case.
    Last edited by leecher; 27 Mar 2012 at 12:18 AM.

  2. #1372
    Join Date
    June 2005
    Posts
    11,839
    Isn't there an embedded SDK, that does not require executable?
    And why translate SkypeApi instead of just write completely different protocol, to support SkypeKit API?

  3. #1373
    Join Date
    April 2005
    Location
    Austria
    Posts
    207
    At least I don't know of any DLL version of SkypeKit, it's always a crypted executable that needs to run in background and is communicating via pipes or sockets with the application that is connecting to it. that's how SkypeKit works.

    Writing a new protocol for interaction with Skypekit would not be very smart from the maintenance point of view. You will always have to maintain 2 protocols then. If you just translate Skype API, you have the advantage that you are interoperable with Skype plugin and also with other Skype plugins in other instant messengers and therefore have a more "generic" version. That's also how the imo.im proxy works. It can also be used with pidgin Skype plugin (even under Unix) for example. One Interface to rule them all ;-)

  4. #1374
    Join Date
    June 2005
    Posts
    11,839
    I think you are creating maintenance. Protocol does not have internal functionality it's just interface between Miranda and server, creating protocol to communicate with protocol.... is a lot of extra work with no benefits. And with skypeKit you could cleanup options nightmare of Skype protocol. There is a lot of benefits to that it makes plugin much more usable.

  5. #1375
    Join Date
    January 2008
    Location
    www.MojaMiranda.pl
    Posts
    751
    I think that having two protocols is way simpler and easier for user. Suppose that you will update "Skype Protocol" from addons page to work with SkypeKit. Every Miranda IM user will get it, every new Miranda IM user will get fully functional Skype Protocol for Miranda IM. That is a huge thing. You can do similar thing with second plugin: Imo2SkypeProxy can be also updated to have most of the parts of current Skype Protocol plugin, to also work "out-of-the-box" but without huge SkypeKit etc.

    An updated Skype protocol plugin with SkypeKit, in addition to the things available for imo, allows for:

    - get Skype "categories" (groups)
    - groupchats
    - typing notification
    - getting Avatars of contacts
    - voice chat (there is already an "Voice service" plugin. You can use it.)
    - video chat
    - file transfers
    - edit/synchronize user/own details(?)

    This list is very tempting.

    From the perspective of an ordinary user, the installation of Skype for Miranda is a nightmare. Using Skype + SkypeKit can also make it a lot easier.
    Last edited by AL|EN; 27 Mar 2012 at 12:44 PM.

  6. #1376
    Join Date
    April 2005
    Location
    Austria
    Posts
    207
    Well, the idea was, that as I have a simple SKYPE API interpreter in imo.im plugin anyway (and I want to keep it that way, so that the imo.im proxy can be used by any Instant Messenger supporting Skype API, even on Linux) , that I can use SkypeKit as a backend for the interpreter (so exchanging the imo.im communication component with Skypekit, reusing the interpreter). But during studying the skypeKit API, I found out, that this may not be so easy to implement anyway.
    If a SKYPE API interpreter is written for SkypeKit, the reusability benefit of the imo.im proxy would also apply to SkypeKit then and other IMs can use it too without needing to write seperate integration plugins - so not only Miranda project would benefit from that.

    But if you think that 2 seperate plugins would be better, I guess it would also be smarter if 2 independent authors are working on the plugins.
    For me, it's enough to maintain imo.im and Skype plugin, to be honest, I don't have time to maintain 3 plugins...
    If there are no connection points between ordinary Skype plugin and Skypekit as they can be seen as 2 different plugins, I guess it would be better to have a dedicated author who is working on SkypeKit-plugin individually and I keep maintaining my plugins for normal Skype and imo.im proxy.
    As SkypeKit is C++ and I'm not really keen on OOP hell anyway, I guess this would be the best solution. *g*
    So, any volunteers? ;-)

  7. #1377
    Join Date
    June 2005
    Posts
    11,839
    Do not know why OOP scares you that much... You could consider class to be a structure, and a member function is a normal function, just have one implied (hidden) extra parameter, pointer to the structure. And you are back to plain old C.

    I think you are over complicating things that's it. Miranda protocol, should not be that much overhead over skype api. Writing interpreter doubles the work... It does not mean your protocols cannot share code, if you can find something to share.
    Last edited by borkra; 28 Mar 2012 at 2:24 AM.

  8. #1378
    Join Date
    December 2005
    Posts
    27
    I've recently switched to 5.8 version of Skype and got large memory minimization.
    For example, with v5.3 my skype eaten ~ 200 Mb of RAM with v5.8 ~70 Mb with same settings and contact list (only skype.exe was changed, i just use portable edition of skype)

  9. #1379
    Join Date
    April 2005
    Location
    Austria
    Posts
    207
    I'm using Skype 3.8.188 for testing - 45MB - Still too much if you ask me :-)

  10. #1380
    Join Date
    April 2005
    Posts
    734
    Code:
    Module:                Skype.exe
    Full path:             C:\Program Files\Skype\Phone\Skype.exe
    File version:          3.8.0.188
    Description:           Skype
    PID:                   3952
    Parent PID:            696  (miranda32.exe)
    Priority:              8
    Threads:               25
    Owner:                 /me
    Session:               0
    
    Started at:            26.03.2012 22:48:15
    Uptime:                1 19:31:17
    
    Command Line:
    C:\Program Files\Skype\Phone\Skype.exe /notray /nosplash /legacylogin /minimized
    
    ...
    
    Processor Time:          00:01:22.343       0%
    Privileged Time:         00:00:36.687       0%
    User Time:               00:00:45.656       0%
    Handle Count:                   444
    Page File Bytes:           28733440
    Page File Bytes Peak:      29741056
    Working Set:               47222784
    Working Set Peak:          48009216
    Pool Nonpaged Bytes:          30104
    Pool Paged Bytes:             91172
    Private Bytes:             28733440
    Page Faults:                1631148      8/sec
    Virtual Bytes:            126992384
    Virtual Bytes Peak:       131055616
    IO Data Bytes:            586793715      0/sec
    IO Read Bytes:            298220665      0/sec
    IO Write Bytes:           288573050      0/sec
    IO Other Bytes:            13166418      0/sec
    IO Data Operations:          725138      0/sec
    IO Read Operations:          464549      0/sec
    IO Write Operations:         260589      0/sec
    IO Other Operations:         357891      0/sec
    The only downside of using this version - I don't have ability to use shared screen... Which turned out to be usable alternative to going off home on support calls. Which is rather hard with injured shoulder.

Similar Threads

  1. SIP Protocol Discussion
    By paul_sh in forum Protocols
    Replies: 206
    Last Post: 5 Aug 2011, 9:19 AM
  2. Skype support without Skype running?
    By fmxer in forum Feature Requests
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 15 Mar 2011, 7:11 PM
  3. Ping Protocol Discussion Thread
    By Let in forum Protocols
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 27 Nov 2010, 10:00 AM
  4. Miranda Freeze with skype protocol active
    By Albe69 in forum Technical Support
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 15 Jan 2006, 8:50 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •