patrick.ohly at intel.com
Mon Jun 6 04:34:21 PDT 2011
On Mo, 2011-06-06 at 11:55 +0100, Adrien Bustany wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Jun 2011 10:36:22 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> > On Mo, 2011-06-06 at 08:41 +0100, Dumez, Christophe wrote:
> > I believe that QtContact IDs are meant be stable across restarts.
> > Syncing based on the QtContacts API relies on that, for example (both
> > Buteo and SyncEvolution). We might get away with it with the current
> > set
> > of apps using QtContacts, but there is no guarantee that it will work
> > with all apps.
> QContactId is just manager uri + QContactLocalId. QContactLocalId
> not be stored by programs, because it can change from one run to
> another. For synchronization purposes, you might want to consider using
Oh, that's good to know. Thanks for clarifying this. I don't remember
where I got the (wrong) idea from. Too much exposure to EDS, I suppose,
where the IDs are stable ;-}
Best Regards, Patrick Ohly
The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although
I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way
represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak
on behalf of Intel on this matter.
More information about the MeeGo-dev