[Chandler-dev] Re: [Cosmo-dev] Re: [Dev] Re: [Cosmo] Apple iCal & cosmo-demo

Morgen Sagen morgen at osafoundation.org
Wed Mar 15 12:34:48 PST 2006

On Mar 15, 2006, at 12:14 PM, Brian Moseley wrote:

> On 3/15/06, Sheila Mooney <sheila at osafoundation.org> wrote:
>> So it looks like either of these options aren't great. Are there any
>> others we should be considering (other than punting on this use case
>> altogether)?
> for cosmo-demo: i think we should allow both cleartext and secure
> access, and prominently document ical's behavior on the cosmo-demo
> front page so that cosmo users know to not use https.
> for cosmo itself: i don't think we should make any code changes. at
> some point apple will resolve their issue and reintroduce ssl support
> into ical. at that point any ical-specific code we've written will
> become useless until we refine it to recognize specific versions of
> ical (assuming that's even possible). don't want to go there.

I agree that we should just document how to get around iCal's current  
behavior.  Otherwise we would have to add code to Chandler equivalent  

  "if we've just published a collection to this specific host (cosmo- 
demo.osafoundation.org) over port 443, then return three URLs ***,  
otherwise return two **."

I don't see any other technical solution that doesn't require Cosmo  
to communicate the fact that there happens to be another port open  
that points to the same instance.  Let's just document this and move  
on.  There are more important issues to deal with.  :-)


*** Three URLs: an https/read-write, an https/read-only, and a http/ 
** Two URLs: a read/write and a read/only, using whatever port was  
used for publishing

More information about the chandler-dev mailing list