+1 for A
On Jul 17, 2007, at 6:14 PM, Katie Capps Parlante wrote:
Moving my comments to this thread...
- I don't think we should be changing icaluids of events
(generating random ones), I think we need to preserve them.
- I'd vote for "A". Chandler desktop would enforce that by
interpreting imported events with the same icaluid as the same event.
Cheers,
Katie
Randy Letness wrote:
This bug describes the issue:
https://bugzilla.osafoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9985
This is probably an edge case but we need to make a decision on
how to handle items in the same collection with the same icaluid.
Cosmo currently allows this, but the CalDAV spec doesn't. So do we:
A. Enforce icaluid uniqueness within collections on both the
client and server. This means any update to a collection that
would result in multiple items with the same icaluid would fail.
Chandler would have to detect this case and not allow it.
B. Allow multiple items with the same icaluid in the same
collection, but implement some workaround on the server to stay
within the caldav spec (say only expose one of multiple items with
the same icaluid in the same collection).
C. Allow it on the server and just not adhere to the caldav spec.
D. ???
-Randy
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "chandler-dev" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/chandler-dev
_______________________________________________
cosmo-dev mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/cosmo-dev
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "chandler-dev" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/chandler-dev
