On Friday 10 April 2009 09:07:12 pm Paolo Abeni wrote:
> hi,
>
> 2009/4/1 Julien Kerihuel <[email protected]>:
> > Sorry I couldn't reply your emails sooner. I'll give a closer look at
> > you Subscribe + Notification protocol + IDL changes proposal this
> > afternoon and get back to you as long as I finish reviewing each of your
> > emails.
>
> Did someone have a chance to review this patch ?!?
I looked at it.
I'm not sure I understand the whole patch. I've added comments in the patch
with >>> BH:
+ /* SearchMessageCreatedNotification: case 0xc008 */
>>> BH: shouldn't this case be 0xc004? [This might not be an issue depending
on the change below]
+ typedef [flag(NDR_NOALIGN)] struct {
+ hyper FID;
+ hyper MID;
+ hyper SearchFID;
+ uint16 TagCount;
+ MAPITAGS Tags[TagCount];
+ } SearchMessageCreatedNotification;
+
>>> BH: Do you need a new structure? Can you just use the existing equivalent
structure? [Note, this might not be a valid concern depending on the note
below]
/* SearchMessageRemovedNotification: case 0xc008 */
typedef [flag(NDR_NOALIGN)] struct {
hyper FID;
@@ -2227,7 +2236,6 @@
typedef [flag(NDR_NOALIGN)] struct {
hyper FID;
hyper MID;
- hyper SearchFID;
>>> BH: why are you deleting this line? From MS-OXCDATA section 2.6.3.3, it
appears that it is part of the structure?
uint16 TagCount;
MAPITAGS Tags[TagCount];
} SearchMessageModifiedNotification;
@@ -2252,6 +2260,7 @@
[case(0x8020)] MessageMoveCopyNotification
MessageMoveNotification;
[case(0x8040)] MessageMoveCopyNotification
MessageCopyNotification;
[case(0x8100)] ContentsTableChange
ContentsTableChange;
+ [case(0xc004)] SearchMessageCreatedNotification
SearchMessageCreatedNotification;
[case(0xc008)] SearchMessageRemovedNotification
SearchMessageRemovedNotification;
[case(0xc010)] SearchMessageModifiedNotification
SearchMessageModifiedNotification;
[case(0xc100)] ContentsTableChange
SearchTableChange;
Brad
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.openchange.org/listinfo/devel
