[Chandler-dev] Edit/update (email sharing) model thoughts

[Brian Kirsch]

On Dec 8, 2006, at 1:43 PM, Jeffrey Harris wrote:

> Hi Brian,
>
> I definitely agree that mail should pass as much as it can off to
> general sharing code when handling emails.  I think there may still be
> small differences in how emails are handled by sharing, but I imagine
> those differences can be handled by including some kind of "This comes
> from a communication" parameter when calling processing methods, if  
> needed.

Yes, in our IRC conversation we mentioned two types of EIM sharing:

1. P2P sharing which would include mail protocols
2. Server based sharing which would include Cosmo

In the P2P world there is no central server to compare the new  
changes to.
So the old state of the item must be included along with the changes.

The EIM layer via flags or alternate methods will need to be able to  
process EIM records
from either a P2P protocol or a central server based protocol.

-Brian

>
>> When a mail is received in Chandler the mail service does the  
>> following:
>> 1. If the message contains no ics or EIM xml attachments treat it  
>> is a
>> traditional mail message and convert the message to an item with a
>> MailStamp.
>> 2. If the message contains an ics attachment and no EIM xml  
>> attachment
>> call out to the Calendar / Object code and convert the message to an
>> item with an EventStamp and MailStamp.
>> 3. If the message contains an EIM xml attachment ignore any ICal
>> attachements  and call out to the sharing code to deserialize the  
>> item.
>
> That sounds good.
>
> Sincerely,
> Jeffrey
> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
>
> Open Source Applications Foundation "chandler-dev" mailing list
> http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/chandler-dev