Re: [SyncEvolution] SyncEvolution 1.0 alpha 1: SyncML server, syncs with phone
Patrick wrote:
We are the server, the phone is the client. Do you mean client here?
Correct.
Care to explain? I don't see why or where the todo items would
be
rejected.
This is done by synthesis, during subdatastore dispatching, if it failed to
find a corresponding backend, it rejects.
> And the client will not sending "todo" items too. This
works
> effectively as only syncing
> "todo" items I think.
Again, I don't see why we would not send "todo" items when the
"super"
data source is active.
This is possible when "super" only has "calendar" as subtype.
(Setting todo as "inactive", there still need some support on this).
> >The semantic that we export to the user then becomes:
> > * when you have a virtual data source configured, then activating
> > any of individual data sources or the virtual data source
> > includes all data in the virtual data source in the sync session
> > * all of these sources must use the same sync mode
> >
> I would also like to support syncing only calendar or todo, if my above
comments
> made sense.
Even if we can get it to work, is it guaranteed that the two peers
remain in sync?
I had asked Lukas that on the Synthesis mailing list. The Synthesis
engine is smart enough to distinguish between temporary and final status
codes, but a) many servers always sent a 500 status code, regardless
what their problem was and b) clients do not check the exact status
code.
That maybe the problem... The configuration of 'super', 'calendar'
'todo' duplicates
a lot, I am thinking we may come up with some kind of sharing config node to keep
them in sync.
Best Regards,
Congwu