[Design] Alpha4 goals from sharing spec

[Bobby Rullo]

>
> 2) chandler has no way to tell cosmo that chandler has subscribed to a
> remote calendar. the only thing chandler can do is copy the content of
> the remote calendar into its local repository and then sync a coppy of
> that content into cosmo. at that point the data in cosmo, the data in
> chandler, and the data in the origin calendar server are all copies of
> each other. it would be a lot nicer if chandler could just tell cosmo
> to subscribe itself to remote calendars, at least with regard to
> syncing. the down side is that if either cosmo or chandler has updated
> its subscription more recently than the other, the data you see in
> scooby and chandler could be slightly different.

I do think the idea of being able to see everything in Chandler in  
Scooby is important, although I see some potential problems with your  
model. With what you proposed Cosmo syncs to subscribed collections  
on its own time, as does Chandler. They are both maintaining copies  
of the subscribed data individually.

However, lots of what Chandler is about (I think!) is adding metadata  
to items in collections - stamping them, triaging them, tagging them.  
It might be tricky (not to say impossible!) to sync the metadata  
associated with these items since Cosmo and Chandler will be out of  
sync (with regards to subscribed collections) occasionally.

I also feel like it's vaguely wrong to have both Cosmo and Chandler  
having to sync to stuff. Maybe all syncing happens through Cosmo? It  
can't all happen through Chandler, cuz then Scooby has to wait for  
Chandler to update it.

Bobby