Re: [Evolution-hackers] e_cal/book_open() + only_if_exists
- From: Chenthill <pchenthill gmail com>
- To: Milan Crha <mcrha redhat com>
- Cc: evolution-hackers gnome org
- Subject: Re: [Evolution-hackers] e_cal/book_open() + only_if_exists
- Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 17:02:40 +0530
On Tue, 2012-02-14 at 11:44 +0100, Milan Crha wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-02-14 at 11:20 +0100, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> > Sorry, typo in my email. I meant "the problem can be avoided by always
> > passing only_if_exist=false". In other words, never use
> > only_if_exists=true because it serves no useful purpose. Is that correct
> > or is there some legitimate usage for only_if_exists=true?
> I do not know how the idea of only_if_exists begun, it predates me.
> The current behavior depends on each backend, some, like those remote,
> doesn't count with it at all (like for the webcal backend, it cannot
> create remote calendars, thus it always either fail or succeed, based on
> the existence of the remote calendar).
> I left it there when changing API due to EClient changes, because it
> seemed to me that someone can find it useful, say with local, non-system
> calendars. But maybe not.
> It will be good to have opinion from other team members, either former
> or current.
These are used atm for operations such as copy-to-calendar or while
changing the calendar from the event-page. My guess is that it could
have been introduced to avoid opening the calendar unless its already
opened to avoid any UI in-responsiveness. IMHO that option can be
removed and the async api's can be used to solve it unless there is some
> evolution-hackers mailing list
> evolution-hackers gnome org
> To change your list options or unsubscribe, visit ...
] [Thread Prev