Re: [evolution-patches] cancel_component_dialog patch

["alfred.peng" <alfred peng sun com>]

Dear Rodrigo,

I think these two functions have some similar meaning. Their purpose is
to ask the users whether they want to send a message to notice the
meeting change(cancel or save a new one). To interact with the users, 
dialog can be perfect.
But if we set the capability "CAL_STATIC_CAPABILITY_SAVE_SCHEDULES", the
function returns and there is no dialog shows up at all. 
With the capability "CAL_STATIC_CAPABILITY_SAVE_SCHEDULES" set, when we
cancel a meeting, the return value is TRUE and notice message sent. When
saving a new one, the return value is FALSE and no message sent.

I think there is some contradiction.

I think the function "cal_client_get_save_schedules" gives SunONE
calendar some extend ability to handle some special problem.
When the capability of "CAL_STATIC_CAPABILITY_SAVE_SCHEDULES" is set, we
can bypass the dialog showing.

So I think we should make them consistent.
I don't know whether I make my mind clear:)
Or maybe there is something I just don't understand.

Thanks for your advice.

Best regards

Alfred Peng

On Tue, 2004-03-23 at 20:52, Rodrigo Moya wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-03-16 at 17:27 +0800, Alfred Peng wrote:
> 
> > Dear Rodrigo,
> >     We found a contradiction in the source code about calendar. Would 
> > you please help me to check it?
> > 
> >     In the source file 
> > calendar/gui/dialogs/send-comp.c(send_component_dialog), when we get 
> > value "true" from the function "e_cal_get_save_schedules", we return 
> > FALSE immediately.
> >     But in the source file 
> > calendar/gui/dialogs/cancel-comp.c(cancel_component_dialog), the 
> > function return TRUE when getting value "true" from the function 
> > "e_cal_get_save_schedules".
> >     Maybe we should change the code to make them consistent?
> > 
> why should they be consistent? one dialog is for cancelling meetings,
> and the other to send. I don't understand why  you need to make them
> consistent.
> 
> cheers
>