On Fri, 2009-09-18 at 09:14 +0100, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-09-18 at 02:19 +0100, Zhu, Yongsheng wrote:
> > So we define 2 new APIs for this issue instead of doing them in
> > getConfig/setConfig?
>
> Yes.
Here's a first draft for this. Does it make sense?
<method name="GetDatabases">
<doc:doc>
<doc:description>
Get list of available databases that can be synchronized
by a source backend.
</doc:description>
</doc:doc>
<arg type="s" name="source" direction="in">
<doc:doc>
<doc:summary>
name of the source configuration which defines
the backend ("type" property); a temporary config
is allowed here
</doc:summary>
</doc:doc>
</arg>
<arg type="a(ssb)" name="databases" direction="out">
<doc:doc><doc:summary>information about all available
databases</doc:summary></doc:doc>
<doc:doc>
<doc:description>
each entry contains in this order:
an optional name that can be shown to the user
(already localized or chosen by the user, empty if unavailable),
a unique value for the "evolutionSource" property,
a boolean which is true at most once for the default source
</doc:description>
</doc:doc>
</arg>
</method>
<method name="CheckSource">
<doc:doc>
<doc:description>Tests whether the source configuration
is correct. Raises an exception if not.
</doc:description>
</doc:doc>
<arg type="s" name="source" direction="in">
<doc:doc>
<doc:summary>
name of the source configuration which is to be tested;
a temporary config is allowed here
</doc:summary>
</doc:doc>
</arg>
</method>
--
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.
_______________________________________________
SyncEvolution mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.syncevolution.org/listinfo/syncevolution
