On Mo, 2011-06-06 at 11:55 +0100, Adrien Bustany wrote: > On Mon, 06 Jun 2011 10:36:22 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote: > > On Mo, 2011-06-06 at 08:41 +0100, Dumez, Christophe wrote: > > <snip> > > > > > I believe that QtContact IDs are meant be stable across restarts. > > Syncing based on the QtContacts API relies on that, for example (both > > Buteo and SyncEvolution). We might get away with it with the current > > set > > of apps using QtContacts, but there is no guarantee that it will work > > with all apps. > > QContactId is just manager uri + QContactLocalId. QContactLocalId > should > not be stored by programs, because it can change from one run to > another. For synchronization purposes, you might want to consider using > QContactGuid. > > <snip>
Oh, that's good to know. Thanks for clarifying this. I don't remember where I got the (wrong) idea from. Too much exposure to EDS, I suppose, where the IDs are stable ;-} -- 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
