On 29 May, 2009, at 08:04, Graham Perrin wrote: > > If a collection is read-only, then should edition (addition of > alarms) be > allowed? > > If the allowance/exception is by design: please, what were the > motives? > > TIA for any advice. > > (The current behaviour feels like a bug, especially if alarms are not > synchronised.)
Hi, Graham I'm not sure if this is intentional or not. However, I can think of a couple of possible motives: 1) Even if the collection is read-only, alarms may not be shared (c.f. the "Manage" dialog for the collection). If alarms aren't shared, maybe it's OK to allow you to edit them, since conceptually there'll be no attempt to change anything on the server. 2) Alarms can be part of people's workflows that differ from person to person. For example, if there's a meeting in my hypothetical workgroup's shared calendar, and I'm in a different building from the other participants, maybe I want to set an earlier alarm for that meeting than everyone else. --Grant _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list unsubscribe here: http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/chandler-users Chandler wiki: http://chandlerproject.org/wikihome
