Message info From:Christian Mollekopf Subject:Re: Building notesIntegration branch Date:Sun, 18 Mar 2012 16:59:41 +0100

On Thu, Mar 15, 2012, at 07:47 PM, Kevin Ottens wrote:
> On Thursday 08 March 2012 09:36:53 Christian Mollekopf wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 6, 2012, at 10:06 PM, Kevin Ottens wrote:
> > > Ah, well in Zanshin, Context are *really* categories on the ical side of
> > > thing. We just label them differently to the user.
> >
> > That makes maybe sense too. In this case we should look into renaming
> > that in Kontact though.
> > Having several names for the same thing doesn't look like a good
> > approach.
> Sure, that's more a decision for Sergio to take though. I wouldn't want
> to
> step on his toes and he is the KOrganizer maintainer.

Sure, I'll start a discussion about that. I also don't mean to change this
behind anyones back ;-)

> > > > If we wanted to use Journals as notes we'd have to do that kde wide,
> > > > I don't see that happening.
> > >
> > > Out of curiosity here, why don't you see that happening?
> >
> > Because we do have journals, and we need some way to distinguish
> > journals from notes (and relying on an existing "dtstart" property
> > doesn't sound like a good solution).
> Well, I'm confused now. :-)
> I thought you meant using only journals everywhere.

Well, there is the is the storage and transport layer, which is iCal and there
are the concepts we have in applications. As concepts in applications we have
the differentiation of Journals and Notes, and I do think it makes sense to
have that differentiation (You don't want journals in your notetaking app and
you don't want notes in your calendar).
On the storage/transport layer notes and journals are nearly identical though,
so one could easily "misuse" journals to store notes.
But since we loose the information if it was originally a note or a journal in
that process, and there is no standard way to preserve that type information,
I find it problematic.

If we still wanted to do that, it should be the responsibility of a special
resource, which offers the todo/event/journal and note interfaces, but stores
everything to ical in the background.

> > Also it seems wrong to handle notes with calendaring tools...
> In my mind journals were really just notes with a date... so not sure how
> wrong that would be. Back in the days (when I started using kdepim) I was
> then
> confused that we also had notes as a separate thing...

I do think they have a different purpose in terms of where they are relevant.
A journal entry is clearly attached to a date, for documentary purpose and
belonging to a calendar. A note may-be attached to a date or not. They are
somewhat overlapping, but I think the differentiation is useful for
applications to decide what to show.

Journals in KJots would seem quite strange to me, just as notes without a date
inside the calendar.

On the other hand, merging the concepts also has some benefits when you
suddenly can browse your notes directly in the calendar. It's not yet clear to
me what the ideal solution would be...

The differentiation between i.e. journaling and notetaking could be helped by
applications using different resources (so you don't have the problem of
journal entries suddenly appearing in KJots).

> It's maybe a bit late now that there's deployments of Akonadi and its
> resources in production. But I wouldn't have been shocked if the decision
> was
> to unify notes and journals as a single entity. I'm kind of remaking
> history
> though. ;-)
> > Technically it's almost a perfect match though, so that is IMO something
> > an akonadi resource can do perfectly well, but shouldn't be exposed to
> > the application level.
> Well, the thing which matters when you use akonadi is the payload to
> expect...
> And we chose KMime::Message for notes already (which have a date field
> btw),
> so it's a bit "too late". Hmm, that said... One could probably make
> serializers in a way that notes could be deserialized both as
> KCalCore::Journal and as KMime::Message, and likewise for journals.
> That'd
> defacto merge the two concepts as a single one for akonadi based
> applications
> if I'm not mistaken (ignoring a slight reshuffling of the mimetypes).

Yes, I think that should work.

> Hmm... I didn't expect that discussion at all but it makes me wonder if
> that'd
> be something to bring to the kde-pim list.

Indeed. It would be kinda cool to unify the concepts. The question is just if
we don't bastardize the Journal concept to much.


> > Ideally we'd have an ipim RFC bringing it all together =)
> Hehe, yes. :-)
> Regards.
> --
> Kvin Ottens,
> KDAB - proud patron of KDE,
> _______________________________________________
> Zanshin-devel mailing list
> Email had 1 attachment:
> + signature.asc
> 1k (application/pgp-signature)
Zanshin-devel mailing list