[kronolith] Updating My Calendar.

[Andrew Morgan]

On Sat, 10 Oct 2009, Jan Schneider wrote:

> Zitat von Andrew Morgan <morgan at orst.edu>:
>
>> When I have access to the originator's Horde calendar (as described in the 
>> bug), what is the reason that Horde only tries to update the originator's 
>> calendar entry?  Isn't the correct behavior to:
>> 
>> 1. Update the originator's event with my attendee status (possibly by iCal 
>> email response if I do not have Edit access)
>
> *Only* by iCalendar response, because there is no guarantee that both users 
> are on the same Horde server, or on Horde at all.

Clarifying what I meant:

A. If I have Edit access on the originator's calendar, Kronolith will 
update the event on the originator's calendar and will not send an iCal 
email response.

B. If I do NOT have Edit access on the originator's calendar, Kronolith 
will send an iCal email response.

Is that correct?

>> 2. Add the event to my own calendar for notification/tracking purposes
>
> It's not that easy, because iCalendar events handled by iTip and also events 
> internally used by Kronolith are identified by a GUID. If we just store the 
> event in the user's calendar, it's either not a GUID anymore, or we need to 
> generate a new GUID which disconnects those two events.

Ahhhh, I think I understand now.  The GUID is the unique identifier for an 
event.  You can't have 2 events (one in the organizer's calendar, one in 
my calendar) with the same GUID.  But if you make a new GUID in order to 
store the event in my calendar, then the 2 events are not linked anymore 
and updates to one event will not be reflected in the other.

Am I catching on yet?  :)

> Of course there are possible solutions, which is what this ticket is about. 
> It may not be rocket science, but it's sufficiently complex to not be done 
> with a single line of code. And it's not top priority of any of the Horde 
> developers at the moment. Well possible that it might be top priority for 
> some users, but we only have 24-hour-days like anyone else, and we're just a 
> small number.
>
> I know that you know that, Andrew, but the tone of your message was more 
> objective and motivating to reply to than the other. :)

Yeah, that's why I responded mostly - to direct the conversation back 
towards something constructive...

 	Andy