On Mi, 2011-09-07 at 12:47 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote: > Right now detached recurrences without parent are simply not sent at > all. It would be fairly easy to turn a single detached recurrence into a > stand-alone event (like Exchange did in step 3), but then what is to be > done with any further detached recurrence sharing the same UID? Make > them exceptions of an event that doesn't recur? Hmm...
I tried that. The non-recurring parent with <Exception> was accepted by Exchange 2010, but when retrieving it again the <Exception> was gone. Exchange/OWA itself does something different: when processing two meeting invitations for different detached recurrences, it creates two different items (without <Exception> and thus without the original RECURRENCE-ID). They both share the *same* UID. I'm not sure how SyncEvolution will react when it is presented two different items with the same UID. The unspoken assumption was that UIDs are, well, unique. The activesyncd API also doesn't deal with this well. When asked to store a VCALENDAR with two detached recurrences inside, it would have to create two different items. But it can only return one ID back to the activesyncd client. We shouldn't change that API. Instead we need to introduce a new semantic constraint (a VCALENDAR may only contain more than one VEVENT if one of them is the parent) and relax another (different VCALENDAR items may share the same UID). That's easy to implement in activesyncd. It's harder to deal with in SyncEvolution. <Sigh> -- 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
