On Dec 8, 2006, at 1:43 PM, Jeffrey Harris wrote:
Hi Brian,
I definitely agree that mail should pass as much as it can off to
general sharing code when handling emails. I think there may still be
small differences in how emails are handled by sharing, but I imagine
those differences can be handled by including some kind of "This comes
from a communication" parameter when calling processing methods, if
needed.
Yes, in our IRC conversation we mentioned two types of EIM sharing:
1. P2P sharing which would include mail protocols
2. Server based sharing which would include Cosmo
In the P2P world there is no central server to compare the new
changes to.
So the old state of the item must be included along with the changes.
The EIM layer via flags or alternate methods will need to be able to
process EIM records
from either a P2P protocol or a central server based protocol.
-Brian
When a mail is received in Chandler the mail service does the
following:
1. If the message contains no ics or EIM xml attachments treat it
is a
traditional mail message and convert the message to an item with a
MailStamp.
2. If the message contains an ics attachment and no EIM xml
attachment
call out to the Calendar / Object code and convert the message to an
item with an EventStamp and MailStamp.
3. If the message contains an EIM xml attachment ignore any ICal
attachements and call out to the sharing code to deserialize the
item.
That sounds good.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "chandler-dev" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/chandler-dev
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "chandler-dev" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/chandler-dev
