Ken Murchison wrote: > Bron Gondwana wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 02:44:46PM -0400, Dave McMurtrie wrote: > >> 3) Store DAV resources in a separate hierarchy like the DELETED > >> hierarchy. I think Ken and I initially liked this idea, but the > >> more we talk about it, the more it seems like this is the hardest to > >> implement and we can't remember why we thought it was a good idea. > >> Also, I think Bron suggested that he'd like to move away from having > >> the DELETED hierarchy at some point. I'm pretty sure we were at a > >> bar when we discussed this, which may explain why my memory is so > >> foggy on the details. > > > > I actually like this best - put it in a separate namespace at the > > top level, like: > > > > addressbook.brong > > addressbook.brong.Work > > calendar.brong > > calendar.brong.Work > > > > This could also be hooked in with "altnamespace" more sensibly, > > and even advertised as separate namespaces or suppressed to IMAP > > clients completely. > > Where would shared mailboxes reside?> I don't know if there is a viable > use case for shared mailboxes, (...snip...)
There's definitely a use-case for shared calendars (think resources such as conference rooms, beamers and cars). Kind regards, Jeroen van Meeuwen -- Senior Engineer, Kolab Systems AG e: vanmeeuwen at kolabsys.com t: +44 144 340 9500 m: +44 74 2516 3817 w: http://www.kolabsys.com pgp: 9342 BF08