[Design] Chandler against fresh Cosmo suggestion
sheila at osafoundation.org
Fri Jun 9 14:40:02 PDT 2006
On Jun 9, 2006, at 2:23 PM, Jared Rhine wrote:
> As a Chandler user, when the Cosmo backend you're storing against
> gets wiped
> (say cosmo-demo moving to 0.4 today), Chandler usability could be
Yes, unless you unpublish the shares before the data on the server
was deleted, Chandler will still think you have those published. Not
sure if we can automatically update that or something. I just deleted
those collection and reimported my calendars.
> Chandler thinks it has shared the collection. But when you sync, the
> .chandler directory can't be found and the sync aborts.
> The "restore published shares" looks promising to "restore"
> deleted-on-server shares, but I don't think that but does what I
> think it
> might just from the name.
Restore published shares works if you have published collections on
the server then you wipe out your Chandler repository. You can
reconnect each share individually and use the same ticket.
> Take online/offline doesn't do anything.
We are renaming those menu items so they make more sense. Technically
offline is supposed to exclude that share from the background sync. I
think right at the moment is just excludes it when you Sync All.
> I'm not sure actually how to get Chandler back; Sheila's working on
As soon as I verify everything works, then I will send out some
> But design suggestion wise, it might be very cool if Chandler would
> a share that's missing on a service at the beginning of a sync
> operation if
> it finds the share is missing outright. That'd make, if I
> understand it,
> recovering from a wiped server as easy as "Sync All".
I suspect this will all be part of our bigger data migration plan for
0.7. We are still working on all the details.
> -- Jared
> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
> Open Source Applications Foundation "Design" mailing list
More information about the Design