Subject: RE: Fw: Correct handling of Recurrence-id

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 15:12:38 -0400

Chris wrote on 06/12/2003 05:49:02 PM:
> In Bruce's model, I need to keep track of the original recurrence-id of 
each
> instance of an event as they evolve. 

You are mixing the scenarios up.  The basic senario is that the set is 
rolled and then workflow takes place on the instances in the set.  You 
seem to be tossing in some kind of "and we reroll the set and then do a 
reschedule". 

Once the set is rolled you MUST have a fixed RECURRENCE-ID so you can 
properly track workflow and changes to the correct instance. 

If you change the RECURRENCE-ID with each set roll AND each reschedule 
then what good is the RECURRENCE-ID?  As both Chris and Doug have noted 
then a missed reschedule (detected by the fact that the RECURRENCE-ID is 
unknown?) can only be recovered by resending the entire set and rerolling 
it again.  All of this is wasted cycles and bandwidth since with fixed 
RECURRENCE-ID missed workflow is not an issue; its simply ignored and the 
latest REQUEST is acted upon.

>                                        In the REFRESH model, all I need 
to do
> is get the current version of the object and I'm done.

All REQUESTs are complete 'current versions' of the instance at the time 
they are sent.  I suspect you are trying to use SEQUENCE to detect the 
"current version" of the entire recurrence set and thats NOT what SEQUENCE 
is used for. 

SEQUENCE is simply the "the revision sequence number of the calendar 
component within a sequence of revisions."  We have no recurrence set 
sequencing property and you cannot use SEQUENCE for that because SEQUENCE 
is defined differently.

Bruce
===========================================================================
Bruce Kahn                                INet: 
[email-masked]
Messaging & Collaboration                 Phone: 978.399.6496
IBM Software Group                         FAX: and nothing but the FAX...
Standard disclaimers apply, even where prohibited by law...
Warning: Dates in Calendar are closer than they appear.

---

From: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:47:42 -0600

I can't follow, please define what you mean by 'rolled'.

[email-masked] wrote:
>  > In Bruce's model, I need to keep track of the original recurrence-id 
> of each
> unknown?) can only be recovered by resending the entire set and 
> rerolling it again.  All of this is wasted cycles and bandwidth since 
> with fixed RECURRENCE-ID missed workflow is not an issue; its simply 
> ignored and the latest REQUEST is acted upon.
> 

-- 

  Doug Royer                     |   http://INET-Consulting.com
  -------------------------------|-----------------------------
  [email-masked]                 | Office: (208)612-INET
  http://Royer.com/People/Doug   |    Fax: (866)594-8574
                                 |   Cell: (208)520-4044

                 We Do Standards - You Need Standards

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 17:29:37 -0400

> I can't follow, please define what you mean by 'rolled'.

Are you serious?  That terms been used in the WG for years.  What do you 
think it means?

Bruce

---

From: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 16:39:45 -0600

Rolled up as in fan out?

[email-masked] wrote:
> Bruce Kahn                                INet: [email-masked]

--