On Fri, 2003-11-14 at 12:36, Rodrigo Moya wrote: > On Fri, 2003-11-14 at 07:34, JP Rosevear wrote: > > On Thu, 2003-11-13 at 21:06, Hans Petter Jansson wrote: > > > Ettore, Toshok and I just had a discussion on IRC re. what to do with > > > ESource and how to get parameters across to backends. > > > > > > What we more-or-less agreed on is that we can pass the ESource to the > > > backend, encoded as XML. This lets callers use ESources that are not in > > > gconf, but also allows getting updates from gconf if the ESource has a > > > UID/path in it (also encoded in the XML). > > > > In general this sounds like the best solution we've seen so far. I'm > > not sure if the gconf updates are viable however since this would > > require knowledge of the key (I guess it could be a named property). > > > > > Thus we avoid the gconf requirement, and the changes to the IDL and > > > ESource are miniscule (XML serialization code is already there). > > > > Sounds right to me, so lets do it the xml way, without the change > > updates and lets add the named properties to the source. > > > hmm, but then, what about changes in the source? How would the backend > know?
It doesn't know right now either. I think we can work this out along the way if necessary. > I'm not really sure we really need them, but we might, if backends start > using the properties in the source. There isn't really another consistent place to put the information. -JP -- JP Rosevear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Ximian, Inc. _______________________________________________ evolution-hackers maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
