Re: Re: Accidentally sharing item that was only emailed around...

Brian Moseley wrote:
> a uid is no longer a uuid if multiple items share it. every item
> should have a uuid if for no other reason than that we can use that to
> unambiguously locate it within a federated database.
>   

I was thinking there would be a "clientUuid" property in addition to a 
uuid.  ClientUuid would be unique within a collection and is what would 
relate items in different collections.

> web ui to a sync model as opposed to a live query model. it's not
> longer sufficient for the web ui to ask for a list of items in a
> collection. 
>   
I still think this could work for a live query model., at least in the 
short term. The client can ask for items in one or more collections, and 
in the case where it receives an item that exists in multiple 
collections, it displays the most recent data.  Conflict resolution 
would be nice though.

-Randy
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

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