[Cosmo-dev] 0.6 sharing proposal

[Morgen Sagen]

On Nov 1, 2006, at 8:38 AM, Randy Letness wrote:

> I started a page (http://wiki.osafoundation.org/bin/view/Journal/ 
> CosmoZeroPointSixSharingProposal) outlining what I think sharing in  
> Cosmo 0.6 means.  After talking with Morgen, Philip, Brian, and Ted  
> last week I realized sharing is a big problem to solve.  Instead of  
> trying to solve the problem in 0.6, I'm proposing we take steps by  
> providing certain functionality in phases.  The wiki page outlines  
> what I think is feasible to complete in the first phase (0.6).   
> There are still some unknowns, and hopefully everything will be  
> flushed out next week while I'm in town.
>
> -Randy
> _______________________________________________
> cosmo-dev mailing list
> cosmo-dev at lists.osafoundation.org
> http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/cosmo-dev

Just catching up on this thread.  FYI, my assumption has been...

Phase 1 would have Chandler continue to publish .ics files to a  
calendar collection on Cosmo, with a ".chandler" subcollection  
containing .xml resources.  The only difference from today would be  
that the .xml files would contain EIM records instead of the current  
XML Chandler uses.

Phase 2 would take place when Cosmo started understanding those EIM  
records, and Chandler could stop publishing the .ics files. (No more  
dual-fork headaches!)

Phase 3 would do away with DAV and use a single HTTP operation to GET  
or POST a bunch of changes to a collection all at once.  (ACID  
transactions, baby!)

I'm definitely willing to combine any of these steps as needed; it  
seems like Randy is suggesting combining phases 1 and 3, followed up  
by phase 2.  Brian is suggesting combining *all* of them into one  
phase I think.  I need to think about this some more before I make my  
vote, but I just wanted to let you know I am reading this. :-)

~morgen