Hans,
No, the internal work effort calendar and the published iCalendar might not be
the same. They have different purposes.
Some examples...
1. I want to make some of my calendar available to the public. I create a
publish point, make it public, and make the work efforts I want to make public
children of the publish point.
2. A department wants to create a department calendar that aggregates all of
the department employees' calendars. A publish point is created and the
department employees are assigned to it. All of the department employees public
work efforts appear on the calendar. The department calendar visibility can be
controlled by the publish point's scope.
3. I have a personal calendar that I don't want public, but I have an assistant
who needs to be able to update my calendar for me. I create a publish point,
make it confidential, and assign my assistant to the publish point as a
delegate.
I could go on. The system was designed to be flexible and meet most calendaring
needs.
-Adrian
--- On Tue, 6/23/09, Hans Bakker <mailingl...@antwebsystems.com> wrote:
> From: Hans Bakker <mailingl...@antwebsystems.com>
> Subject: Re: Discussion: iCalendar Integration
> To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org
> Date: Tuesday, June 23, 2009, 6:01 PM
> Hi Adrian,
>
> thanks first of all the work you are doing here, and
> excellent addition
> to the system. However i have the impression that not
> enough existing
> functions in ofbiz are re-used and the implementation is
> not integrated
> enough. Related to that is how this will work together with
> the calendar
> function in workeffort? In that calendar there is no
> publishpoint.
>
> In the end, the ical calendar downloaded should be the same
> as the
> workeffort calendar showed in the screens?
>
> Can you please explain what your thoughts are on this?
>
> see further my comments inline....
>
>
> On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 16:06 -0700, Adrian Crum wrote:
> > I'm almost ready to commit the work I have been doing
> on the iCalendar
> > integration. Before I do, I would like some feedback
> on a particular
> > function.
> >
> > Background: One work effort serves as an iCalendar
> "publish point" -
> > it's not a work effort that anyone interacts with, it
> just contains
> > settings that tell the iCalendar servlet what to do.
> In the current
> > implementation, all public work efforts of all parties
> assigned to the
> > publish point will be included in the calendar. The
> party's assignment
> > role is ignored. The publish point's scope (public,
> confidential,
> > private) is ignored. These are things I would like to
> change.
> >
> > In the new implementation, if the publish point work
> effort has a public
> > scope, then anyone can view work efforts that are
> related to it. If the
> > scope isn't public, then access to the related work
> efforts is
> > restricted to only the parties who are assigned to the
> publish point.
> > Oops, now I have a conflict with the previous
> implementation - where a
> > party assignment meant to include that party's public
> work efforts in
> > the calendar.
> >
> > Here's where I need the feedback. I need to use the
> publish point work
> > effort to party assignment ROLE to control what the
> servlet does. A
> > party related to the publish point in role "A" is a
> party whose public
> > work efforts are included in the calendar. A party
> assigned to the
> > publish point in role "B" is a party whose access to
> the calendar is
> > controlled by the publish point.
>
> it looks like that the info at the related workeffort to
> the publish
> point should override the info at the publish point. If the
> publish
> point is public but the related workefffort is not then
> that event
> should not be available.
>
> What do you mean here with role "A" and role "B"? I am lost
> here
>
> >
> > Looking at the current calendar roles, we have
> Attendee, Delegate, Host,
> > Organizer, and Owner. The Delegate role might be
> appropriate for the
> > party in role "B". I don't know what to do about the
> party in role "A" -
> > should I create a new role? Something like "Calendar
> Participant" or
> > "Calendar Member"?
> >
> > Any feedback would be appreciated!
> >
> > -Adrian
> --
> Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive
> rates
>
>
