Re: [evolution-patches] patch for #62113 (calendar)

[JP Rosevear <jpr novell com>]

On Thu, 2004-08-12 at 17:59 +0200, Rodrigo Moya wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-08-11 at 00:59 -0400, JP Rosevear wrote:
> > On Tue, 2004-08-10 at 17:22 +0200, Rodrigo Moya wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2004-08-10 at 17:08 +0200, Rodrigo Moya wrote:
> > > > This deals correctly with updates to instances of recurring meetings
> > > >
> > > sorry, updated correct patch attached, discard the previous one
> > 
> > Hmm, its seems that now in e-itip-control we send a cancellation for the
> > instance - in 1.4 I think we just sent a new REQUEST with the EXDATE
> > updated.  It appears as though the file backend will handle this, but we
> > need to confirm the groupwise and exchange backends will as well (the
> > exchange backend used to special case this i believe).
> > 
> as we talked in the meeting, it's probably better to use receive_objects
> instead of modify_object. In fact, we are using receive_objects in some
> other place in that same file (update_item). So, here's an updated patch

Well, in this case actually we are using the modify_object call on the
event we fetch from the server so I think modify_object is correct.
Also, update_attendee_status is only called when receiving a REPLY (ie
you are the organizer), so I'm not sure it would actually affect the
CANCEL issue, in fact it looks like Cancel should already theoretically
work.

-JP
-- 
JP Rosevear <jpr novell com>
Novell, Inc.