Cyrus CalDAV design decision

[Ken Murchison]

Bron Gondwana wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 02:44:46PM -0400, Dave McMurtrie wrote:
>> 3) Store DAV resources in a separate hierarchy like the DELETED
>> hierarchy.  I think Ken and I initially liked this idea, but the
>> more we talk about it, the more it seems like this is the hardest to
>> implement and we can't remember why we thought it was a good idea.
>> Also, I think Bron suggested that he'd like to move away from having
>> the DELETED hierarchy at some point.  I'm pretty sure we were at a
>> bar when we discussed this, which may explain why my memory is so
>> foggy on the details.
> 
> I actually like this best - put it in a separate namespace at the
> top level, like:
> 
> addressbook.brong
> addressbook.brong.Work
> calendar.brong
> calendar.brong.Work
> 
> This could also be hooked in with "altnamespace" more sensibly,
> and even advertised as separate namespaces or suppressed to IMAP
> clients completely.

Where would shared mailboxes reside?  I don't know if there is a viable 
use case for shared mailboxes, or if any clients support them, but I 
don't want our design choices to prevent us from implementing them.

-- 
Kenneth Murchison
Principal Systems Software Engineer
Carnegie Mellon University