On Di, 2011-05-17 at 14:06 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Wed, 2011-05-11 at 10:27 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote: > > > > If QtContacts-EDS is ever meant to work with a) non-file backends or > > b) a file backend which has longer IDs (perhaps because they were > > created before upgrading to EDS with the 32 bit patch), then hashing > > will be needed again. > > > > I think we can rule out a) for MeeGo, at this time at least. > > We are actively working on adding other back ends, for example for use > with Microsoft Exchange (via both EWS and ActiveSync). My primary focus > was MeeGo 1.3, but there are those who need it on 1.2 too. So I don't > think you can rule it out so easily.
Do they need it in combination with QtContacts? > > Let's remove it. With all the rewriting of the code, the original design > > for the hashing probably makes no sense at all anymore anyway. Besides > > that, it also has the conceptual issues mentioned earlier (no checks for > > hash collisions). > > On the other hand even if it's not quite working it serves as > documentation of where this support needs to be added back. That was my original motivation for keeping the ifdefs. But after all the rewrites, relying on the ifdefs as guidance would at best be useless or worse, misleading. -- Best Regards, Patrick Ohly The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak on behalf of Intel on this matter. _______________________________________________ MeeGo-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-dev http://wiki.meego.com/Mailing_list_guidelines
