Re: Re: [Proposal] Making syncing b/w Desktop and Web dead simple

On Dec 18, 2007, at 10:40 AM, Morgen S=E5gen wrote:

>> OPEN ISSUES
>> + Morgen: What happens if you have already subscribed to =20
>> collections you
>> previously published to Chandler Hub and then you set up our Hub =20
>> account?
>> Can Chandler figure out that they're the same collections you have =20=

>> on the
>> server and rationalize them?
>
> I believe so.  Under the hood I'll need to distinguish between which
> collections in your account on the server are "private" (meaning just
> sharing with yourself, or serving as an online backup), and which are
> being shared with others.  You could have two copies of each
> collection in your account: the private one and the shared one.

We should make sure we test this. I think when I tried it, I got an =20
error. But need to re-try it to make sure.

>
>> + It's kind of weird from the Desktop perspective to have an OOTB Hub
>> collection sync down to Chandler Desktop. Can we delete this =20
>> collection for
>> the Desktop user if the user hasn't added anything to it from the =20
>> web UI?
>
> Well, I'm not sure if Chandler can determine which collection is OOTB.

Can we mark it in some way? The OOTB collection is named using the =20
user's First Name / Last Name from the account.

>
>> There are also content modeling improvements we need to make in =20
>> order to
>> have it all work truly well. Mainly, you always want to share all =20
>> attributes
>> with yourself, but there are some attributes you never want to =20
>> share with
>> others (Read/Unread, Alarms, BCC:). Would this relatively 'dumb' =20
>> fix work to
>> address this issue?
>>
>> + We add Read/Unread/Needs reply status to the list of sharing =20
>> filters; and
>> + When you publish, we change the default sharing filters to select
>> everything; but
>> + When you subscribe, we set the default sharing filters to only =20
>> check
>> Triage Status + Event Status.
>
> I think the private/shared copies of the collections will solve this
> issue instead.  The private copies won't have any filtering turned on
> at all.

Yayy. Hm, how much work is this? Is this at all feasible for 1.0 (aka =20=

Feb 6th)? Or are you talking post 1.0?

>
> ~morgen
> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
>
> Open Source Applications Foundation "Design" mailing list
> http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/design

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Open Source Applications Foundation "Design" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/design