Use UUIDs for Event UIDs

[janrg]

As discussed in #200, according to https://icalendar.org/New-Properties-for-iCalendar-RFC-7986/5-3-uid-property.html, the UID property should preferably be a UUID and should not include any domain information. This will also make the domain attribute obsolete.

[gprst]

Hi ! I am currently working on this. I've chosen uuid-random for the UUID generation because it seems to be UUIDv4-complient, and be quite light.

I've noticed the domain() function has been deprecated for quite a long time (since 0.3.0, current version is 1.15.0), so I'm not quite sure if I should just delete the property at once, or just leave it as "deprecated" ?

[sebbo2002]

Please leave it as deprecated for now, I would not like to open a new major version because of such a small change. It would be an incompatible API change in any case. That would be a point I would want to address in version 2.x.

[sebbo2002]

Ah sorry, read it again and noticed that I am probably not quite awake yet. You can knock out domain(), but I wouldn't merge the PR until there is a bit more accumulated for a version 2.0. Hope that is okay for you then.

[gprst]

I could still push two PRs, one for the UUID (that I would actually need haha, your project's great and I'm using it), and one for the removal of domain(). Note that this would also include the removal of all occurences of the domain property accross the examples ; I've already started, and changed domain for name when domain was just used as an example property.

[gprst]

Also I will push the PR in a couple of days haha, I want my Hacktoberfest t-shirt 😅

[sebbo2002]

I think two pull requests are a good solution. Then I can merge one directly if the solution is backwards compatible. The removal of domain() would then be put off to 2.0. Also you are then a bit further on the t-shirt with two pull requests instead of one. 😂

[gprst]

I ended up using the same PR for the whole issue, with two commits : one for the UUID part, the other for the domain property removal 🙂 I hope it looks like what you expected.

[sebbo2002]

@gprst Thanks, this will definitely be in version 2.0.

[sebbo2002]

Closing as we now have #215.