Re: No partial success when it comes to deletion?

[John Stracke <jstracke@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Doug Royer wrote:

> John Stracke wrote:
>
> > Doug Royer wrote:
> >
> > > I agree with Bruce. I was looking at it from an RDBMS point of view.
> > > It will make simpler devices much harder to implement. They tend
> > > to be thin clients or memory restricted anyway.
> >
> >
> > Why would a CS be a thin client?
>
>
> PDA

Um.  OK, I know we've discussed this before, but I never did grasp the 
utility.  Sure, a PDA usually has a CUA with, in effect, its own 
calendar store (usually a file or some such); but I don't see why that 
CS would be exposed via CAP.  If you want lightweight, you don't put the 
CS into a separate process on the PDA; you integrate the CS access into 
the same process as the CUA.

Or are you talking about having a remote CUA or CS CAP into the PDA to 
sync with its CS?

--
/=======================================================\
|John Stracke      |jstracke@xxxxxxxxxxx                |
|Principal Engineer|http://www.centive.com              |
|Centive           |My opinions are my own.             |
|=======================================================|
|Two words that do not go together: "Memorial Cookbook".|
\=======================================================/