Hi, On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 1:00 PM, Brad Hards <[email protected]> wrote: > On Saturday 11 April 2009 11:16:19 pm you wrote: >> But according to [MS-OXCNOTIF] section 2.2.1.4.1, it can be inferred >> that such field is not present (it's bit trick since must match the >> NotificationType and Code against the info provided in the last table >> column). > I'm not seeing this. I see discussion of FolderID, but not specifically > SearchFID. Perhaps you can explain it to me more clearly? > > I think we may be able to deal with this case, once we have this fully > understood.
In the whole section 2.2.1.4.1 no field is named 'SearchFID', so I assume a different naming convection is in place. I Think that the 'SearchFID' from MS-OXCDATA section 2.6.3.3 is mapped into the ParentFolderID (since this is compatible with the description of the other notification structures, but even if the real mapping is another one the following discussion should apply). The only fields having a type compatible with 'FolderID' are TableRowFolderID, TableRowMessageID, TableRowOldFolderID, TableRowOldMessageID, FolderId, MessageId, ParentFolderId, OldFolderId, OldMessageId, OldParentFolderId. For NotifcationFlags equal to 0xc010: * no TableXXXXID field is present (since NF & 0x3 || NF & 0x4 || NF & 0x5) == 0 * FolderId and MessageId fields are present * ParentFolderId is not present (do not match NotificationType requirements) * OldFolderId, OldParentFolderId fields are not present ( NF & 0x20 || NF & 0x40) == 0 So there are exactly two fields with 'ID' type (MessageID and FolderID). Cheers, Paolo _______________________________________________ devel mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.openchange.org/listinfo/devel
