[Cosmo-dev] 0.6 sharing proposal

[Bobby Rullo]

On Nov 1, 2006, at 4:23 PM, Brian Moseley wrote:

> reading between the lines, i sense that you are worried about how to
> deal with chandler publishing only an eim record stream given that we
> store event info in an icalendar blob rather than as discrete database
> columns, but i'm not sure why. it seems straightforward to me for the
> chandler and cosmo teams working together to define an eim event
> record type that we can convert into icalendar format and store in the
> event item's calendar blob. it also seems straightforward given the
> existence of such a record type to convert an icalendar blob into a
> set of eim records to send back for subscription requests. there
> certainly doesn't seem any need to store eim records in the cosmo
> database.

I always envisioned that one day Cosmo would store everything in some  
format that more closely matches the Chandler model, and when someone  
wants something in icalendar via CalDAV or webcal or whatever, the  
appropriate conversion takes place.

I think this is important because events in Chandler's world are not  
necessarily  just events. They might also be emails and tasks and  
lord-knows-what-else. They will have attributes that are not  
icalendar related.

So I'm thinking, why store all icalendar stuff in one place, and  
other type of properties somewhere else? Why are calendar items  
"special"?

Now reading between the lines of what Randy wrote ("Ideally we need a  
way to transform EIM data into CalDAV resources (CalendarItem? in  
Cosmo) and vice-versa") I am thinking that this is just a temporary  
stopgap until we have everything stored in one sort of unified way  
and stop thinking of events as special. But I don't want to assume  
anything, and I'm not sure if Brian shares this vision, and if not, why.


Bobby



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.osafoundation.org/pipermail/cosmo-dev/attachments/20061101/0532c8a0/attachment.htm