(meant to send to [EMAIL PROTECTED] please, for the love of joe, can we have reply-to headers on these lists? *sometimes* i want to address a reply privately but *most often* i want it to go directly to the list.)
On 3/16/07, Brian Moseley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 3/16/07, Mimi Yin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > To clarify, if you receive the same item from the same person in 2 > different shares, 1 RW, the other RO, the RW privilege on the item > should win. i'm fine with that. i didn't realize that is what you were talking about. > Morgen, Sheila and I have discussed Contact-Sharing scenarios where a > per-account item soup is precisely what you want / expect as an user. > (Namely, sharing contacts via item references. I share an item with > you which references a contact item you and I both have.) > > Or to be less wedded to a particular solution and more goal-oriented, > even when two items have the same UUID, there are times when you want > to distinguish between two items, precisely by who 'owns' which > version of the item. I don't know that a per-account item soup is the > answer to that, but the statement below is very broad and I'm not > sure how it plays out when taking specific scenarios into consideration. first of all, two items can't have the same uuid, because a uuid is defined as a universally unique identifier. if two items have the same uuid, then they are by definition the same item. whether or not particular features require some amount of account scope isn't my issue. those are application features that can be layered on top of the model. the model itself should not have a per account scope built into it, because many or most of our features don't need it and would be more complicated with it.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Open Source Applications Foundation "Design" mailing list http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/design
