Hi, > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:meego- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of ext Michael Meeks > Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 11:24 AM > To: Mathias Hasselmann > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Arjan van de > Ven; Philip Van Hoof > Subject: Re: [Meego-architecture] [MeeGo-dev] Some architecture changes > (MSSF / Buteo / PIM storage) > > > * Do we really want to fully sync such large datasets? Shall we > > sync only limited datasets, e.g. title and email address? > > It seems clear that the ability to search a corporate contacts > database > quickly and efficiently is rather a useful one.
Hm, I think that searching in a remote contact directory and accessing locally stored contacts are sufficiently different use cases. They can be unified on QtContacts level, and it's actually a good reason why there may need to be multiple QtContactManagers in the client API (while attempting to aggregate local contacts across multiple backends is a bad idea as we discovered the hard way). If e-d-s has become good at accessing and caching remote directories, more power to them. My experience with it from many years ago, when it was clearly a stagnant project handed off to some hapless folks at Novell who didn't know what to do with it, taught me that I could not even trust it to store my local PIM data reliably. The bugs I filed have never been properly addressed. But maybe things have improved since then. I'd like to see some research on the matter to accompany the drastic decisions. That said, I'm all for solutions that work now, as opposed to vague expectations that take too long to materialize. Expecially if the client-side API can stay the same, so the implementation can change again when the homework is properly done. Peace, Mikhail _______________________________________________ MeeGo-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-dev http://wiki.meego.com/Mailing_list_guidelines
