Re: [SyncEvolution] SyncEvolution 1.0 alpha 1: SyncML server, syncs with phone
On Tue, 2009-12-08 at 08:57 +0000, Chen, Congwu wrote:
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.
But we are not yet configuring the Synthesis engine like this, do we? At
the moment, whenever the "super" source is active, it always dispatches
to both "calendar" and "todo", doesn't it?
>> >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.
That would be hard to implement. The config node sharing doesn't know
anything about such semantic relationships between sources.
I'd prefer to leave the config system as it is and clearly document (and
check) what is required for consistency.
--
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.