Re: gnomecal/evolution vs gnome-pilot

[Carlos Morgado <chbm chbm nu>]

Trever Adams wrote:
> 
> Eskil Heyn Olsen wrote:
> > The new evolution IDL solves this, by apparently using the Observer
> > pattern. This would let some gnome-pilot component sit and listen to the
> > calendar, be notified of events such as creation of new records (thus
> > sparing the expensive iteration over only-new-records that the gnomecal
> > conduit has to do now), but more importantly, be notified of deleted
> > events, and remember these.
> 
> I believe the GnomeCal format currently keeps a timestamp on the record
> allowing it to say if it is new or not.  Why not add another line that
> shows that the record has been deleted.  After a decent amount of time,
> say one week, or first sync, trash the record.  I do not believe in
> CRUDE hacks just to do syncing... and my suggestion may be crude, but it
> isn't totally insane like adding another running process to the
> calender.  GnomeCal is the data store, not the conduit, and it should
> stay that way.  Why do I want another program adding more data to my
> disk?
> 

This is not gnomecal. It's the Evolution "suite". It's a totally new thing
based on gnomecal/gnomecard/whatnot.


-- 
Carlos Morgado - chbm(at)chbm(dot)nu - http://chbm.nu/ -- gpgkey: 0x1FC57F0A
http://wwwkeys.pgp.net/ FP:0A27 35D3 C448 3641 0573 6876 2A37 4BB2 1FC5 7F0A
Software is like sex; it's better when it's free. - Linus Torvalds