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

[Alain Abbas]

Jeroen van Meeuwen (Kolab Systems) a écrit :
>
> 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
>
> --
>
just seems more logic for me in an object program model that  the type 
is the exclusion is in the exclusion itself (mod or delete) and
not separated of the exclusion object .
In this case we have only one object for all the case , in the other 
case 2 object a special one for the deleted and a special one for the
modified.
After  a little search on the internet i found in design patterns the 2 
cases

but it s just a mind vision .




> Senior Engineer, Kolab Systems AG
>
> e: vanmeeuwen at kolabsys.com
>
> t: +316 42 801 403
>
> w: http://www.kolabsys.com
>
> pgp: 9342 BF08
>