Re: [Evolution-hackers] improve PHOTO support in libebook/EDS
- From: Tristan Van Berkom <tristanvb openismus com>
- To: Patrick Ohly <patrick ohly gmx de>
- Cc: Evolution Hackers <evolution-hackers gnome org>, Murray Cumming <murrayc openismus com>, Ross Burton <ross burton intel com>
- Subject: Re: [Evolution-hackers] improve PHOTO support in libebook/EDS
- Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2011 20:54:42 -0400
On Thu, 2011-07-07 at 18:31 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-07-07 at 15:09 +0530, Chenthill wrote:
> > I like the staging directory approach. Would it be possible for
> > implementing the logic to convert the inline data ->file inside
> > e_book_client_add_contact so that the clients need to worry about
> > changing the code ?
>
> "need *not* worry", right?
>
> Yes, I can imagine that this would work. Should we allow to enable or
> disable this client side? In other words, should we force the separate
> storing of photo data in all cases or is there a legitimate situation
> where a client might want to force the data to be stored inline?
It's possible but will need to be conditional, probably depending on
whether there is a staging directory available or not.
I'll start thinking about how this staging directory could be
implemented, I suppose the client needs to create one somehow
while opening the EBook, and only on the condition that the
backend can handle incoming data from a staging directory.
Possibly at book creation time one needs to specify an
actual directory for this (or has the option to specify
a directory)...
How do remote backends handle uris from the local staging dir ?
perhaps the staged uris would be sent as ftp:// to the remote
backend but locally stored in a file:// uri... does the backend
need to participate in the formatting of the uris that will
be sent to it ?
Perhaps the backend needs to claim that it supports a list of
protocols for staging data (such as 'file','http','ftp' etc) ?
Cheers,
-Tristan
> I can't think of one myself.
>
> Note that once we introduce this mechanism (whether it is mandatory or
> not), all clients must be prepared to deal with PHOTO URIs. But this is
> not new, because there might already be contacts in current EDS with
> URIs.
>
> The only change would be that clients get an URI for their *own*
> contacts even if those had inline data.
>
[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]