On Fri, 2003-09-12 at 18:44, Rodrigo Moya wrote: > On Fri, 2003-09-12 at 09:05 -0400, JP Rosevear wrote: > > On Fri, 2003-09-12 at 06:35, Rodrigo Moya wrote: > > > On Fri, 2003-09-12 at 01:32 -0400, JP Rosevear wrote: > > > > So, using create/modify/remove object methods in the calendar (matching > > > > the addressbook api) is starting to shape up nicely, however I > > > > encountered one problem. Create has the nice feature of returning the > > > > uid of the object created (addressbook does this because it can't > > > > dictate to the ldap server the id I believe). This is nice since it > > > > allows us to match the server ids (esp. in the groupwise case where we > > > > can't set any old uid). > > > > > > > > Now, the problem I've encountered is that itip/imip needs to keep the > > > > exact uid for 3rd party objects arriving via email. > > > > > > > hmm, right > > > > > > > Aside from dropping this system entirely, I've thought about a couple of > > > > things: > > > > > > > > 1. Add a receiveObject call to match the sendObject call - both will be > > > > itip/imip specific (I think this still causes some work in the case of > > > > groupwise since this part will force us to retain a mapping of 3rd party > > > > uids to groupwise uids). > > > > > > > retain a mapping? Can't you create objects in the GW server with any > > > UID? > > > > Nope. You put it in the system and it gives you an id. This id is only > > guaranteed to be unique to the server as well. > > > hmm, so what does it do then when getting iTip components from other > servers/clients?
I don't know. Scott? We'll end up keeping a mapping anyhow likely. -JP -- JP Rosevear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Ximian, Inc. _______________________________________________ evolution-hackers maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
