Re: Testing

[brian moseley <ix maz org>]

On Wed, 8 Dec 1999, Bertrand Guiheneuf wrote:

> brian moseley wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 8 Dec 1999, Miguel de Icaza wrote:
> >
> > > I am sorry, I might be missing something here but what
> > > is the relation of "value-key" with a folder/message
> >
> > both mime header data and icalendar data are essentially
> > name-value based. each icalendar property could easily be
> > accessed through the camel interface as a mime header.
> 
> Sure but this would this certainly not be something
> we would be proud to show to our children later ;)

what about the somewhat different approach of adding
fundamental calendar/pim abstractions to the camel api? in
other words, adding event, todo and journal base classes?
this also would allow the reuse that we've been discussing.

while there are definitely differences in the domain
applications of the different types of data we're talking
about, there are many more similarities, especially with
regard to handling many different types of data sources and
data formats, and the infrastructure should be capitalized
on as much as possible.