>This is great! I just tried the linux build this afternoon and was
>able to make it play reasonably nicely with AOL T/W's internal
>directory server. I'd be interested in helping you land this in the
>Mozilla tree, but this would be a lot easier if we could get
>the patches in question in Bugzilla.
>
Wonderful. I was crossing my fingers hoping it
would work for outside of our domain!
>I'd suggest creating a new tracking bug in Mail/News : Addressbook for
>the various different features of this patch, and if you'd like me to
>eventually do the checkin honors, go ahead and assign it to me. The
>next step would be to file multiple bugs for the various
>sub-components; and attach the patches to those bugs. At a minimum:
>
>* one bug for the modifications to the existing addrbook code
>
>* one bug for the LDAP searching code (we could probably just use
>17879 for this)
>
>* one bug for the MAPI searching code
>
>All three of these bugs should block the main tracking bug. Splitting
>it up like this will make it much easier to get through the review
>process and will evoke less fear when it starts being tracked on the
>mozilla planning radar <http://komodo.mozilla.org/planning/branches.cgi>.
>
>If this sounds like a plan you'd like to go forward with, I'll deal
>with the landing radar tommorrow.
>
This sounds like a good plan. I am a little behind
as i think yourself and Csaba chatted on IRC and
set the cogs in motion.
>Speaking of bugs, is 69480 actually just left over from the
>addressbook refactoring landing and should be resolved?
>
Errmm not sure, but i think so.
Further work does not affect clients in such
a broad way i.e. only minor interfaces changes
or additions.
>> There is an explanation of how to enable both LDAP and
>> MAPI by simply editing the prefs.js file in the text file
>> SummaryPatchII.txt. Our next Patch (Patch III)
>> will enable this through the GUI. We hope to post some
>> screen shots of this soon.
>
>Very cool; nice work!
>
We have some preliminary GUI stuff working with ldap
ala 4.x style and are working on the advanced search
XUL dialog with n-level hierarchy as proposed in
previous posts. In addition it will be possible to
search MDB and MAPI addressbooks as it is just a
specialization of a query.
We will mail some GUI ideas and issues around
searching this week.
>One problem I noticed was that if I only used a single search term,
>rather than an or'ed pair of search terms as used in the example, I
>didn't see any results. I don't have the details near me at the
>moment, unfortunately, but I'll look again when I do.
>
Ooh a problem! Can you mail me the URI query string
you are using?
Thanks alot for checking it out so quickly.
One thing i am concerned about is error handling.
Currently there is no feedback to the user that
an ldap operation failed or generically that an
addressbook operation failed. Not sure what is
the best way to handle this. Perhaps re-using and
creating exception codes and mapping these to
i18n strings for dialogs to use in the address
book?
Or is there going to be generic listeners on
ldap sessions/connections which can inform the
user when somthing has gone wrong? so that
specific applications do not need to inform
the user if general ldap operations have failed.
Paul.
| ? + ? = To question
----------------\
Paul Sandoz
x19219
+353-1-8199219
