On Mo, 2011-06-06 at 13:34 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote: > On Mo, 2011-06-06 at 11:55 +0100, Adrien Bustany wrote: > > On Mon, 06 Jun 2011 10:36:22 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote: > > > On Mo, 2011-06-06 at 08:41 +0100, Dumez, Christophe wrote: > > > > <snip> > > > > > > > > I believe that QtContact IDs are meant be stable across restarts. > > > Syncing based on the QtContacts API relies on that, for example (both > > > Buteo and SyncEvolution). We might get away with it with the current > > > set > > > of apps using QtContacts, but there is no guarantee that it will work > > > with all apps. > > > > QContactId is just manager uri + QContactLocalId. QContactLocalId > > should > > not be stored by programs, because it can change from one run to > > another. For synchronization purposes, you might want to consider using > > QContactGuid. > > > > <snip> > > Oh, that's good to know. Thanks for clarifying this. I don't remember > where I got the (wrong) idea from. Too much exposure to EDS, I suppose, > where the IDs are stable ;-}
Hmm, I wonder whether app developers are aware of this. It implies that passing QContactId between processes is not correct, because these IDs are only valid inside the process. Connie, how are contacts references inside the MeeGo UX (for things like "show contact XYZ")? QContactId or QContactGuid? -- Best Regards, Patrick Ohly The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak on behalf of Intel on this matter. _______________________________________________ MeeGo-dev mailing list MeeGo-dev@meego.com http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-dev http://wiki.meego.com/Mailing_list_guidelines
