Comments inline below...
Grant Baillie wrote:
[cosmo-dev@ CC:ed, Reply-To: set to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
So, I've been looking through the Chandler domain model to see what
remains to be done w.r.t. EIM for Preview. Here's the laundry list of
stuff that's related to ContentItem/Note and Stamps: I'll send out a
separate email for the rest of the domain model (mainly, collections),
since those are more dump-and-reload than sharing (morsecode) specific.
Feel free to chip in with stuff you think I've missed or
misunderstood, or to answer/ask questions.
I added some little codes to track what I thought the Cosmo impact of
the changes would be:
[√] == would need parallel change from Cosmo
[X] == no change needed from Cosmo (but needed for dump/reload porpoises)
[?] == unsure if this requires changes (i.e. part of morsecode)
- Morgen sent out an earlier email about triage in ItemRecord
- Unsupported fields in ItemRecord:
[X] error (a string)
[?] read
[?] needsReply
[√] lastModification: An enumeration to say whether the last change was
queued, edited, sent, updated. I should probably
add the 5th state, created, too.
modifiedFlags: This is a "bitfield" of the values in lastModification.
- In the ItemRecord code
# TODO: see why many items don't have createdOn
[X] I'll look at this
- ItemRecord (importing triage):
[X] # TODO: do something with auto
I've got changes for this in the triage-recurrence branch; I hope to
merge these into the trunk today or tomorrow.
- In the NoteRecord code: there are TODOs in the import & export methods:
...
[?] # TODO: REMOVE HACK: (Cosmo sends None for empty bodies)
I'm not sure what this is about ...
- NoteRecord currently has:
# Note.reminders? (Translator not implemented yet)
reminderTime = eim.field(eim.DecimalType(digits=20, decimal_places=0))
[√] My understanding here is that Bug 7915 (and iCalendar
interoperability)
imply that we should have a separate ReminderRecord (or, AlarmRecord, if
we're going with iCalendar-like syntax). What do people think of that?
- EventRecord:
[√] icalParameters and icalProperties should probably move to NoteRecord,
since VTODOs (and VJOURNAL, if anyone ever supports that :) can have
them.
- EventRecord:
[√] # TODO: EventRecord fields need work, for example: rfc3339 date
strings
- EventRecord:
(when exporting event modifications)
[?] # TODO: yield a TaskModificationRecord if appropriate
- EventRecord needs support for autoTriage when that's checked in
[?]
(possibly this has been taken care of in the Chandler triage_recurrence
branch).
Most of the autotriage mechanism is done in the triage-recurrence
branch; I haven't added the calls to actually do autotriaging when an
updated item is received; I'm planning on doing it soon, though I dunno
whether it'll be before the merge.
- {Event,Task}ModificationRecord:
[√] Do we need to think about supporting a 'modifies' field à la
iCalendar RANGE (IIRC)? It's possible Chandler will support
THISANDFUTURE more robustly (Currently, we just make a new
recurring series in this case, which is probably what Cosmo
does, too). Maybe this could just be a future addition to the
schema?
- MailMessageRecord:
[?] I believe there are more fields needed besides subject/to/cc/bcc; I'm
not sure if we need the complete rfc2822Message LOB (at least for
dump/reload). Probably this is more Mr Kirsch's area, but I can take
a look if need be. Also, Brian, were you working on the non-MailStamp
parts of dump/reload (e.g. account info, mainly)?
Not quite what you asked, but I have a separate change (not in the
branch, not checked in), that adds an "originators" attribute to
MailStamp, displayed/edited with the other email addresses in the detail
view as "From"; the existing fromAddress attribute is manipulated by the
byline Send As mechanism.
There's more required that I haven't done yet (displaying the send-as
address value until the user puts a custom value in the originators/From
field; copying valid addresses from originators to CC on reply, putting
the originators list in the body prefix for non-Chandler users, etc).
This will get finished after the branch is merged.
I haven't looked at the mail spec or ongoing discussion in detail, but I
don't know whether the byline spec requires anything more than what's
there now.
...Bryan
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "chandler-dev" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/chandler-dev
