[Dev] Re: possible way to simplify email/server match-up

[Lisa Dusseault]

Yes we can certainly ping WebDAV servers to find out who has accounts.  
I think our current requirements include that the sharing server 
support the ACL extensions, in which case this ping is trivial -- one 
REPORT request to find out a list of accounts.

What if there are 10,000 accounts on the server?  Do you expect to do 
some kind of first or last name matching search?

Lisa

On Feb 25, 2005, at 3:06 PM, Mimi Yin wrote:

> We've talked a lot about ways we could match up email addresses with 
> user accounts on servers so that it's easy for Chandler users to send 
> invitations out to other people without having to know much more than 
> an email account.
>
> We also talked about doing things like tickets to make it so that 
> users who don't have accounts on the sharer's server can still access 
> the share.
>
> I'm wondering if we can return to a serverized version of an idea 
> Mitch had a long while back for P2P that might simplify things? (aka 
> pre-defined Sharing Circle)
>
> When a user sets a share, Chandler pings the various servers the 
> sharer has accounts on and generates a list of people who also have 
> accounts on the same servers...User can select sharees from that 
> list...Depending on who the user selects, Chandler uploads the share 
> to the appropriate server(s). (OR Do we want to discourage that for 
> conflict resolution issues?) This would be the ideal since it means 
> the client is doing what the user wants...
>
> A compromise might be that depending on the server the user selects, 
> Chandler generates a list of available sharees...which means that the 
> user might be left in a situation where 9 of the 10 people (ie. 
> co-workers) they want to share with have access to 1 server (@work), 
> but 1 out of 10 (spouse) has access to a different server (@home). But 
> life isn't fair.
>
> Not sure if this "ping the server for a list of sharees" is possible 
> or even easier than some of the other options we've looked at, but 
> thought it was worth throwing out there.
>
>