Question: Individual annotations vs One large annotation (conceptual riddle for the interested)

Jeroen van Meeuwen (Kolab Systems) vanmeeuwen at
Tue Oct 11 14:16:31 CEST 2011

On 11.10.2011 12:08, Gunnar Wrobel wrote:
> Quoting "Jeroen van Meeuwen (Kolab Systems)" 
> <vanmeeuwen at>:
>> Gunnar Wrobel wrote:
>>> You state again that all annotations are dependent on each other 
>>> and
>>> can potentially conflict with each other.
>> No, I don't state that. I state that in order to be able to safely 
>> configure
>> feature $a on a folder, a client must be able to guarantee no 
>> feature $b
>> through $z has already been configured on a folder, any of which 
>> *may* be
>> mutually exclusive with feature $a.
> Why would the client need to guarantee that? Shouldn't the Kolab
> format spec guarantee that?

If the format spec is to guarantee such a client's capabilities still 
have to be made up to spec in order to conform to the format, inherently 
causing the client to need to be able to guarantee; no matter where the 
restriction is specified, the client still has to be able to guarantee, 
on its own merits or to comply with the specification.

>> If feature $b through $z were stored in annotations the client has 
>> no
>> knowledge of, it is then also unable to provide such detection.
>>> I disagreed before and still do.
>> Then again, there's no strong objections against using one 
>> annotation;
> True, my objection is not a very strong one. But I am leaning towards
> separate annotations and had the impression Bernhard did as well.

I have strong -and in my opinion very valid, and blocking- objections 
against using multiple or separate annotations, so I'm confused as to 
why we are still discussing this. No other alternatives have been 
provided, no blocking objections exist against using one annotation.

I certainly hope "leaning towards" nor the perception that the KEP 
process establishes a democracy does not trump technical feasibility.

>> it
>> seems we're arguing just for the sake of arguing, and going
>> absolutely nowhere
>> while doing so.
>> I have yet to recognize any objections against using one annotation.
> I mentioned before that I do not see any reason why clients such as
> the Z-Push active sync client should fetch any Horde specific
> configuration.

This isn't a serious objection. Horde itself has stored configuration 
in annotations, something very likely to change with the adoption of a 
more widely usable configuration storage definition. Also note that the 
use of one annotation for configuration that is shared amongst various 
clients and application is *NOT ACTUALLY* mutually exclusive with adding 
annotations to the arbitrary whim of a single client choosing to use its 
own methodology to store arbitrary stuff. It does however form the basis 
of consolidation of arbitrary stuff, and a richer Kolab experience as a 

Kind regards,

Jeroen van Meeuwen

Senior Engineer, Kolab Systems AG

e: vanmeeuwen at
t: +44 144 340 9500
m: +44 74 2516 3817

pgp: 9342 BF08

More information about the format mailing list