Grant Baillie wrote:
In the latest & greatest Chandler, I noticed that we still have an
"itemCollectionInclusions" attribute on ContentItem. This used to be
the inverse of ItemCollection.inclusions, which no longer exists.
this attribute should probably go away
So, presumably, this attribute should go away. However, it is
actually in use in a couple of places in the code base:
1) The recurrence code does some delicate footwork trying to make
sure that individual occurrences end up in the correct collections.
(E.g. occurrences generated by a rrule aren't supposed to be in any
collection IIRC).
I handle this in the All collection with with a set that excludes
generated events (see views.main.parcel.xml for details). Other
collections that need to exclude these events could do it the same way
-- or by unioning with the all collection. There should be no need to
write any code to handle this -- which is the beauty of sets.
2) The Trash code (still under development, I think) uses it to make
sure that items are removed from their containing collections before
being moved to the Trash.
Again, this can all be done with sets and not code.
I'm not sure how this stuff is supposed to work in the new setly
world, so perhaps someone who is could comment.
--Grant
Grant Baillie
Open Source Applications Foundation
http://www.osafoundation.org
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "Dev" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "Dev" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
