Re: gnomecal/evolution vs gnome-pilot

On Thu, 9 Mar 2000, Trever Adams wrote:

> I believe the GnomeCal format currently keeps a timestamp on the record
> allowing it to say if it is new or not.  Why not add another line that
> shows that the record has been deleted.  After a decent amount of time,

That option has been discussed, but raised some issues ;
1) what is a reasonable amount of time ? (yes, the same problem occurs in
the other solution)
2) this puts functionality into gnomecal that is for the purpose of
another program. From a design perspective, not the most appealing thing.
3) 2 is void if enough programs require this (other sync tools eg.)

Besides that, yes, this is a solution that would be easy and quite
stable/complete, and I would be happy with such a solution (if it was
supported in the ical standard as other mails mention).

> isn't totally insane like adding another running process to the
> calender.  GnomeCal is the data store, not the conduit, and it should
> stay that way.  Why do I want another program adding more data to my
> disk?

I don't think the extra process would so expensive that it would be a
problem. And the amount of data on the disk is the same in the two


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]