[Cosmo-dev] cosmo 0.6.1 EIMML changes

[Morgen Sagen]

On Mar 1, 2007, at 3:41 PM, Randy Letness wrote:

> Jeffrey Harris wrote:
>> It's a bummer that we miscommunicated about all this, I've  
>> implemented
>> one thing in Chandler, you've implemented a different thing in  
>> Cosmo, we
>> both thought we were working from the same page.  I'm not sure which
>> side will have an easier time shifting, but I can certainly work on
>> changing Chandler's implementation.
>>
>> I can change Chandler's modification translators to whatever works  
>> best
>> for Cosmo, as long as somehow, any record associated with a  
>> modification
>> includes an indication that it's about a modification and what that
>> modification's recurrence-id is.
>>
>
> I don't think we're that far off.  Cosmo still has to represent a  
> modification as a separate note item.  We just need to decide on  
> the protocol.  I'm fine with defining a noteModification and  
> eventModification  record  type that each have two key fields  
> (parentUuid and recurrenceId).  Cosmo will assign a random uuid to  
> modification items, but will use parentUuid and recurrenceId to to  
> lookup existing items.

I think that sounds good, but I'll wait for Jeffrey to give a  
definitive answer.  :-)

>
> The only problem I see is that in eimml, a recordset is related to  
> a cosmo item by uuid:
>
> <eim:recordset uuid="item1">
>  <event:record xmlns:event="http://osafoundation.org/eim/event/0">
>  ...
>   </event:record>
> ...
> </eim:recordset>
>
>
> So for modifications, would the modification records be included in  
> the parent item's recordset, or in its own recordset?  Since we  
> aren't exposing the uuid, it seems like they would have to be  
> included in the master's recordset.

Yes, the modification records should reside in the master's recordset.

Thanks,
~morgen