Re: [SyncEvolution] merging of winning and loosing items
On Wed, 2014-04-09 at 12:55 +0000, Emiliano Heyns wrote:
On 09/04/2014 14:49:22, "Patrick Ohly"
<patrick.ohly(a)intel.com> wrote:
>
>It's hard to do with the existing Synthesis engine (it expects the data
>stores to really apply changes) and protocols. SyncML has sync anchors
>and could in theory repeat the last sync, but I suspect that many
>implementations will not implement that correctly. libsynthesis does
>(as
>far as I know), but SyncEvolution doesn't.
>
How did Google's Wave and products like CouchDB handle such things? As
they revolve around sync, this ought to be a huge problem for these.
These are closed systems and thus have full control over all sides of
the sync and the protocol involved. Therefore it is a different problem
whose solution wouldn't work for SyncEvolution.
For example, CouchDB assumes that a DB gets created in one place and
then gets replicated. You cannot take two independent DBs and merge them
(at least as far as I know - I am not a CouchDB expert). The data also
cannot be stored in a different format outside of the DB (in particular
using the existing PIM storage of a certain system).
See also
https://syncevolution.org/development/pim-data-synchronization-why-it-so-...
--
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.