[Cosmo-dev] sharing update 12/19

Randy Letness randy at osafoundation.org
Wed Dec 20 08:05:47 PST 2006

Brian Moseley wrote:
> i think that the wider group of people interested in sharing need to
> some voice some opinions here. maybe i'm the one guy who's spoiling
> everybody else's party here. if so, i'll have to deal with that. but i
> really do think that we might be overcooking our dinner here.

I think the question is what should Cosmo be?  Should Cosmo be a 
Chandler repository where it doesn't really know about the data, just 
stores and regurgitates it using eim? We could definitely do something 
like that, but it would require re-architecting everything and dropping 
support for caldav and other protocols.  Or should Cosmo be a smart 
repository, where it knows about the things its storing(calendar items), 
and is able to provide several protocols for retrieving and manipulating 
the data?  The answer is probably both.  Providing both is difficult, 
and I think thats why we are making compromises, at least for the short 

Having the eim records require a uuid makes sense because right now in 
Cosmo, everything is associated with an item, which has a uuid.  We 
cannot store anything that is not an item, or that is not associated 
with an item.  For preview, thats fine because thats all that needs to 
be shared.  We can always re-evaluate later if we see a need for sharing 
things that are not items.  So I guess what I'm trying to say is that 
eim is powerful, but do we really need all that power now?   Instead of 
implementing Microsoft Office, lets concentrate on implementing Works.


More information about the cosmo-dev mailing list