[Design] Re: Accidentally sharing item that was only emailed around...

[Randy Letness]

Philippe Bossut wrote:
> 2 problems I see with the c18n proposal:
> - item sharing between collections in the webUI won't work: so 
> Chandler Server is basically siloed, not per kind of items but per 
> collection. Debatable if its against the Chandler philosophy or not. 
> I'll leave that issue open.
> - Adding a 3rd Chandler client in the mix still allows propagation 
> scenarios where an edit is done when it shouldn't. e.g.:
>    - User 1 publishes collection A with item aaa
>    - User 1 gives read-only ticket to User 2 and read-write ticket to 
> User 3
>    - User 2 gets item aaa, modifies it and shares it in published 
> collection B
>    - User 2 gives read-only ticket to User 3 on collection B
>    - User 3 syncs all: he gets edits from User 2 on item aaa from 
> collection B, those edits get propagated to collection A

I see your point.  You can be subscribed to an item read-only in one 
collection and read-write in another, but they are the same item in 
Chandler.  So changes made to the item in the read-write collection 
probably shouldn't be reflected in the read-only item, because its 
read-only.  Consider this scenario:

- User 1 publishes collection A with item aaa
 - User 1 gives read-only ticket to User 2
 - User 2 gets item aaa, modifies it and shares it in published 
collection B
 
User 2 has read only access to aaa in collection A, but write access to 
his copy in collection B.  User 2 modifies his copy.  What happens in 
this case?  Now there are two copies of aaa that aren't in sync because 
one is read-only, but in Chandler its only represented as 1 item right?

-Randy