RFC: KEP3: Introduction of 'subevent' sub-tag for 'exclusion' from 'recurrence' (revision #10661)

[Jeroen van Meeuwen (Kolab Systems)]

Georg C. F. Greve wrote:
> Hi Alain,
> 
> On Monday 06 December 2010 21.36:54 Alain Abbas wrote:
> > but it s more simple to process all at the same level for alghorithm as
> > subevent Poom model in active sync is like that and the object model in
> > outlook i think too if the deletion is in the same tag you have just a
> > loop and a test . if there are at different level you must have 2 loops
> > with the risk of error if a date is in the exclusion and in the subevent
> > too
> 
> I must say this defeats my expectation of how this would work practically.
> 
> Normally I'd parse XML through one of the parsers, which would give me a
> tree structure in memory. From that came the expectation that a check
> 
> 	if ( exception.subevent != null) { // treat as deletion
> 
> would be as simple as
> 
> 	if ( exception.delete == 1) { // treat as deletion
> 
> Help, anyone? How do others see this?
> 

I don't see the problem as Alain perceives it to exist, but I think I do have 
a clue as to what he means.

Alain Abbas wrote:
> <event>
> ...
>    <recurrence>
>    ...
>      <exclusion>date1
>        <subevent>
>          <start-date>date</start-date>
>          <deleted>1</deleted>
>        </subevent>
>      </exclusion>
>    </recurrence>
> </event>
> 

The "<deleted/>" that would not have to exist, because;

- The datetime in the <exclusion /> already establishes which occurence is 
being altered,
- If the occurence is to be deleted, or skipped, there would be no <subevent 
/>

Ergo, a deleted occurence would look like this;

 <event>
 ...
    <recurrence>
    ...
      <exclusion>date1</exclusion>
    </recurrence>
 </event>
 
And if the following occurence where to be modified;

 <event>
 ...
    <recurrence>
    ...
      <exclusion>date1</exclusion>

      <exclusion>date2
        <subevent>
          ...
        </subevent>
      </exclusion>

    </recurrence>
 </event>

In code, this would mean that the list of exclusions will need to be iterated, 
one by one - I think that may be what Alain is referring to.

Kind regards,

Jeroen van Meeuwen

-- 
Senior Engineer, Kolab Systems AG

e: vanmeeuwen at kolabsys.com
t: +316 42 801 403
w: http://www.kolabsys.com

pgp: 9342 BF08
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kolab.org/pipermail/format/attachments/20101210/96a4c0db/attachment.html>