[Evolution-hackers] Re: Create/Modify/Remove in the Calendar

[Rodrigo Moya <rodrigo ximian com>]

On Fri, 2003-09-12 at 01:32 -0400, JP Rosevear wrote:
> So, using create/modify/remove object methods in the calendar (matching
> the addressbook api) is starting to shape up nicely, however I
> encountered one problem.  Create has the nice feature of returning the
> uid of the object created (addressbook does this because it can't
> dictate to the ldap server the id I believe).  This is nice since it
> allows us to match the server ids (esp. in the groupwise case where we
> can't set any old uid).
> 
> Now, the problem I've encountered is that itip/imip needs to keep the
> exact uid for 3rd party objects arriving via email.
> 
hmm, right

> Aside from dropping this system entirely, I've thought about a couple of
> things:
> 
> 1. Add a receiveObject call to match the sendObject call - both will be
> itip/imip specific (I think this still causes some work in the case of
> groupwise since this part will force us to retain a mapping of 3rd party
> uids to groupwise uids).
> 
retain a mapping? Can't you create objects in the GW server with any
UID?

> 2. Allow modify to create objects as well (*ugly*), and these objects
> will preserve all the attributes.
> 
> 3. Some sort of parameter to create that forces it to use the existing
> uid (only slightly less ugly than 2)
> 
1 seems the best to me, if it can easily be implemented for the GW
connector.

I like the receiveObject idea, since it makes clear the distinction,
which might be even more important for future connectors.

cheers