Re: [SyncEvolution] How is "peer.config" selected in dbus method Connect
On Thu, 2009-11-05 at 07:05 +0000, Chen, Congwu wrote:
If the syncevo-dbus-server is supposed to work as a syncML server,
the dus api
Server.connect need peer.config to be set explictly to select the appropriate
configuration.
This is a short-term workaround. The final solution will be that the
server analyzes the first SyncML message, extracts the device ID,
searches for the corresponding configuration, then runs a sync session
with that configuration.
From:
http://bugzilla.moblin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7710
- we should delay picking a peer configuration until we really
know the peer's device ID; currently we only check that the
pre-chosen peer configuration matches
I noticed the http server now uses the request url path to identify
this. How
can this be handled in obexd? The only possible information Obexd can get
without looking into the message is the peer's Mac address, but this property
seems not appropriate for configuration identification (The same device can
have multiple remote configuraitons).
We still might have to do some matching of MAC address against
configuration on the client when it receives a SAN message. Depending on
what server created that message, the server ID in that message might
not be unique. When SyncEvolution talks to SyncEvolution we can (and
should) avoid that ambiguity and put the server's deviceID into the SAN
message.
I am asking this because I am using Obexd+SyncEvolution Server
<--> Obex
Client+client-test for the obex transport test. It looks not easy for the obexd
to set the peer.config properly without looking into the message; therefore
either it always stick to a default configuration or the server need some other
mechanism to detect the configuraitons itself.
Exactly.
Also, the documentation seems have not updated to include
peer.config.
That's because it will be removed again.
--
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.