Hi David, On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 10:44 AM, David Henningsson <david.henningsson at canonical.com> wrote: > On 02/18/2013 09:10 AM, Mikel Astiz wrote: >> >> From: Mikel Astiz <mikel.astiz at bmw-carit.de> >> >> Expose the newly added card profile availability in pacmd. > > > This raises the interesting question of whether to expose the profile > availability. As I understand it, this is mostly for internal use right now > and that _AVAILABLE_NO (for profiles) is an rarely seen edge case. Is this > correct? > > As such, I think it's okay to expose in pacmd, but until we have a real use > case, we shouldn't make it part of the protocol and client API. Does that > make sense? It definitely makes sense to me. Such an extension to the core should have a validation phase to make sure the feature is actually required, so I agree that it shouldn't be exposed in the external APIs yet. Cheers, Mikel
