Moodle
  1. Moodle
  2. MDL-19361 messaging code review META
  3. MDL-19043

Messaging 2.0: Evaluate where to store user instant messenger data

    Details

    • Type: Sub-task Sub-task
    • Status: Closed
    • Priority: Minor Minor
    • Resolution: Won't Fix
    • Affects Version/s: 2.0
    • Fix Version/s: None
    • Component/s: Messages
    • Labels:
      None
    • Affected Branches:
      MOODLE_20_STABLE
    • Rank:
      5315

      Description

      I was giving the mdl_user table a critical look and from a normalization/flexibility perspective think that we can do a little better. Currently we have individual fields for icq, skype, yahoo, aim, and msn. These are all types of instant messaging. As work on Messaging 2.0 progresses, it strikes me that this data would better be stored in a separate table that would allow flexibility in what services are used on the site. If a new IM server comes out (for example Google talk) we do not have to keep adding fields to the mdl_user table. I think we should have a table of IM providers that we support and then create a table called something like mdl_user_improviders (id, userid, providerid). Peace - Anthony

      http://tracker.moodle.org/browse/MDL-10107
      http://docs.moodle.org/en/Development:Messaging_2.0

        Issue Links

          Activity

          Hide
          Anthony Borrow added a comment -

          I am linking MDL-19043 to MDL-28452 as both have to do with getting the instant messaging fields out of mdl_user. I am not sure that treating them as custom user profile fields is the best way to go. I wonder if there might be an explicit connection to message providers. Peace - Anthony

          Show
          Anthony Borrow added a comment - I am linking MDL-19043 to MDL-28452 as both have to do with getting the instant messaging fields out of mdl_user. I am not sure that treating them as custom user profile fields is the best way to go. I wonder if there might be an explicit connection to message providers. Peace - Anthony
          Hide
          Michael de Raadt added a comment -

          Thanks for reporting this issue.

          We have detected that this issue has been inactive for over a year. It was reported as affecting versions that are no longer supported.

          If you believe that this issue is still relevant to current versions (2.5 and beyond), please comment on the issue. Issues left inactive for a further month will be closed.

          Michael d.

          TW9vZGxlDQo=

          Show
          Michael de Raadt added a comment - Thanks for reporting this issue. We have detected that this issue has been inactive for over a year. It was reported as affecting versions that are no longer supported. If you believe that this issue is still relevant to current versions (2.5 and beyond), please comment on the issue. Issues left inactive for a further month will be closed. Michael d. TW9vZGxlDQo=
          Hide
          Michael de Raadt added a comment -

          I'm closing this issue as it has been inactive for over a year has been recorded as affecting versions that are no longer supported.

          This is being done as part of a bulk annual clean-up of issues.

          If you still believe this is an issue in supported versions, please create a new issue.

          Show
          Michael de Raadt added a comment - I'm closing this issue as it has been inactive for over a year has been recorded as affecting versions that are no longer supported. This is being done as part of a bulk annual clean-up of issues. If you still believe this is an issue in supported versions, please create a new issue.
          Hide
          Anthony Borrow added a comment -

          Michael - This is a suggested improvement to better normalize access to other social networks/instant messaging. The existing fields may even be out-dated and provide a spot for a username. I would like to see something much more dynamic along the lines of message processors where as new social networks emerge or IM providers that there is the flexiblity to create the record rather than adding a custom user profile field. I see that we now have mdl_user_devices, perhaps something like mdl_user_networks for things like LinkedIn, GooglePlus/Hangouts, Facebook IM, etc. Do you have a sense if this type of work is being considered with some integration with messaging? In any case, I think this could still use a little attention/thought. Peace - Anthony

          Show
          Anthony Borrow added a comment - Michael - This is a suggested improvement to better normalize access to other social networks/instant messaging. The existing fields may even be out-dated and provide a spot for a username. I would like to see something much more dynamic along the lines of message processors where as new social networks emerge or IM providers that there is the flexiblity to create the record rather than adding a custom user profile field. I see that we now have mdl_user_devices, perhaps something like mdl_user_networks for things like LinkedIn, GooglePlus/Hangouts, Facebook IM, etc. Do you have a sense if this type of work is being considered with some integration with messaging? In any case, I think this could still use a little attention/thought. Peace - Anthony

            People

            • Votes:
              0 Vote for this issue
              Watchers:
              2 Start watching this issue

              Dates

              • Created:
                Updated:
                Resolved: