On Mar 12, 2008, at 10:47 AM, Grant Baillie wrote:
Hi, Mimi
One random thought: If we are going to require emailed items to be
on the server, then we don't need to send out the eimml at all. In
other words, we could send an attachment that tells chandler how to
get to the item on the server, but we don't need to send a local
copy of the item, and therefore we wouldn't run into the whole
email vs shared item conflict issue.
That sounds reasonable. It won't work when you're offline, but I
think we can live with that.
The downside of requiring the item to be shared means that there
are now two servers we need to converse with before sending email,
so twice the chance of an error. Also, I think the UI needs to
reflect that the item is being "shared", not "emailed" (i.e. so
there is no confusion with what is expected of a "regular email
client").
Yea. Not sure how to address this issue yet. So we might need to live
with new design a bit, get feedback and then tweak accordingly. The
fact that you start out with notes and events and then add addressing
fields to them is already kind of strange as far as "normal email
workflows" go. I imagine that if/when we expose the ability to choose
between read-only and read-write item sharing, the difference between
Chandler "email" and normal email will be even more apparent.
Also not sure how much the user needs to understand explicitly. (I
still don't really get how Exchange invitations work. That's a hybrid
email / sharing thing too.)
Other than that, do you feel we have a solid proposal for what the
Desktop needs to do? Are there any remaining open issues for the
Server / web UI?
Mimi
--Grant
On 12 Mar, 2008, at 10:14, Mimi Yin wrote:
Here is what I understand:
1. If we want users to be able to click on something in an email
and subscribe to an item with Chandler Desktop (without going
through the Hub), the best way to do that is to keep the EIMML
attachment around so that Desktop users can click on it (like .ics
attachments).
2. It also seems like we *do* want to keep around the ability to
download email directly into Chandler to facilitate item-sharing
scenarios so that Desktop users can receive invitations to
subscribe to items directly in Chandler Desktop.
Both #1 and 2 are nice to haves however, they complete the item-
sharing workflow, but they're not things we have to have in the
short-term.
On the other hand, we already do #s 1 and 2, so there's an
argument to be made that keeping them around isn't a big deal so
long as any bugs they cause are also not a big deal.
My current feeling is that "spurious conflicts" caused by Edit/
Update are not that common and something we can live with. Does
anyone else been experiencing a lot of 'email-related' bogus
conflicts?
That being said, we *still* need to solve this problem where today
users can send out an item via email and then put it on the server
after-the-fact.
- The original item is sent out without a read-write ticket.
- The recipient could then put the item on the server and prevent
the sender of the item from gaining access to that item on the
server, or vice versa.
I think this pretty much means that we need to *always* publish
items to the server when they're emailed. Meaning, item-sharing is
done via the server, not email, but email is used as a way to
address items to specific recipients and transport the item to
recipients' email clients.
Proposed Workflow:
1. Create new message.
2. Hit Send
- Item is automatically published to the server + read-write
ticketed URL
- If user doesn't have sharing account, they are prompted to get
one ;)
NICE-TO-HAVE
- Ability to specify read-write versus read-only in the DV or a
pop-up or something...
3. Recipients receive email + ticketed sharing URL + EIMML
attachment in their email client.
- Casual Collaborators click on ticketed sharing URL to access
item on Hub;
NICE-TO-HAVES
- CC can add item to their account
- Desktop users can click on attachment to automatically subscribe
to item with Desktop, if they are not online when they click on
the attachment, they should still be able to see the item added to
the Desktop client
I know we've gone back and forth on whether to keep the EIMML
attachment + inbound email functionality, but I think I'm finally
getting a better picture of what's required to make the item-
sharing scenarios work smoothly. So in other words, I think we're
close!
Still, I'm interested to hear if I'm still making assumptions that
aren't necessarily necessary ;) and/or if anyone else has
alternative workflow ideas that would simplify the way we do item-
sharing without compromising the user experience too much.
Mimi
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
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
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "chandler-dev" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/chandler-dev
