reinhold at kainhofer.com
Mon Sep 20 09:54:52 CEST 2004
On Monday 20 September 2004 08:32, Bo Thorsen wrote:
> On Friday 17 September 2004 18:42, Reinhold Kainhofer wrote:
> > I just read the kolab spec once again, and it seems that the alarm
> > settings are very poor in the current version in cvs. All there is is
> > one simple integer for specifying an alarm.
> > Currently, korganizer already supports executing an application, and
> > playing a sound in addition to a simple reminder dialog.
> > However, I'm currently planning to extend korganizer to support
> > multiple alarms, with possible settings for an alarm:
> > -) type: reminder dialog (msg given by user), sound,
> > application/script, maybe email (but that would require having a daemon
> > running even when not logged in, so it's probably outside of
> > korganizer's scop).
> > -) repeating alarms
> > -) Alarms also counted from the end of an incidence (or the start of a
> > todo).
> I also thought about this. But if you look at the "run an application"
> alarm type, how would you expect that to work in a cross machine and
> cross platform environment? Answer: Not reliably, at least.
> So the question is what to do about it. We might try and just save all the
> things KOrganizer can do in the format. However, Outlook usually simply
> can not keep information like this between saving. So we would need some
> extra logic to transform it to something that would make sense for
> Outlook. And if the executable is not there.
> Would it make sense to have a set of tags that Kontact can use only, but
> that the user will get a warning (with a don't show again cb) when using?
> This would of course be usable for more than just this problem.
Other calendaring applications like evolution also support multiple alarms,
which are specified in rfc 2445. I wouldn't like a message box "You can use
multiple alarms, but please be aware that when using a Kolab server one other
calendaring application (Outlook) does not support this. Do you really want
this?" that much.
What's your current way to handle multiple email addresses and more then three
phone numbers? We should probably do it in a similar way...
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the format