Re: [Evolution-hackers] 32 bit IDs in contact file backend

[David Woodhouse <dwmw2 infradead org>]

On Tue, 2011-05-17 at 14:51 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> On Di, 2011-05-17 at 13:27 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > On Tue, 2011-05-17 at 14:04 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> > > On Di, 2011-05-17 at 12:38 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > > > Even if we *didn't* have immediate plans to use other back ends like EWS
> > > > with this setup, that would be entirely the wrong thing to do, surely?
> > > 
> > > I'm not so sure. We are pitching EDS as an alternative for other storage
> > > solutions that are highly optimized (= limited!) for specific use cases.
> > > What you are suggesting is that any attempt to add optimizations for a
> > > specific combination of app + EDS + backend is wrong and should be
> > > avoided. My feeling is that EDS will simply not be used at all unless
> > > such optimization are acceptable.
> > 
> > [EDS upstream]
> > 
> > I have no objection to an *optimisation*. You seemed to be describing a
> > *fix*, not an optimisation.
> > 
> > An *optimisation* allows things to work faster or more efficiently, when
> > they were already working before.
> > 
> > So if you expose an extra '32bit-numeric-uid' in your static
> > capabilities for the back end, and the user can make use of that to
> > operate more efficiently by bypassing the permanent uidstring<->integer
> > mapping, then I'm happy with that.
> 
> That was the plan.

In that case I have no objection to the EDS part in principle.

> > But *only* if it really is an optimisation, and designed such that
>  > the code still works (via the mapping) without it.
> 
> I can't promise that the code will work without it right away because
> the mapping hasn't been implemented yet due to lack of time. See also:
> http://lists.meego.com/pipermail/meego-dev/2011-May/483078.html

That needs to be fixed; I've responded to that message.

-- 
dwmw2