On Mon, 2011-11-14 at 21:06 +0100, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> On Mo, 2011-11-14 at 11:22 +0100, Milan Crha wrote:
> > On Mon, 2011-11-14 at 10:00 +0100, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> > > So I suggest to pursue the first approach instead. I think it is
> > > possible for the file backend.
> > > Is it also possible for other backends? Or are some unable to store
> > > the UID and look up contacts (efficiently) by it? In that case we will
> > > have to relax the semantic of the API and accept that some backends
> > > still use their own local ID. "Supports UID" should be defined as a
> > > capability of the backend so that clients can take it into account.
> > I wouldn't call it "local UID", it's rather "backend's UID"
> I wouldn't use the term UID at all for this local (or backend) ID. UID
> has a specific meaning for both iCalendar 2.0 (where it is well-defined)
> and vCard (where it is less well-defined). Introducing yet another
> flavor of UID just leads to confusion, in particular when the same
> contact has both the original vCard UID and a local backend "UID".

Yep, that would be a LUID (Local UID)

evolution-hackers mailing list
To change your list options or unsubscribe, visit ...

Reply via email to