The time-window issue is relevant to more than just deleted entries. A
relying party may also need to know the timeframe for a given set of
edits and posts. What I had originally imagined is that the time window
would be handled by a higher level sync specification and not
specifically by the tombstones draft.
- James
Mark Stahl wrote:
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 2:40 PM, James Holderness <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
Mark Stahl wrote:
This leads to problems with clients that periodically poll for
changes - they don't know if the set of tombstones is complete
since the last time they polled.
I'd suggest adding an element at:deleted-since, so the server
can let the client know the tomebstone window in effect.
Assuming you did know whether the set of tombstones was complete or
not, how would this effect your behaviour as a client? In other
words, what would you do differently if you knew the set of
tombstones was incomplete?
James,
The issue is sync, and the diffrence is between incremental and full sync.
Assume a client has previously downloaded a complete copy of a
collection at time T1. Some time later, T2, the client retrieves the
updated feed. Assume entries and tombstones are both in app:edited
order, as suggested by Mark Nottingham. If the client knows that the
server is still holding tombstones of all entries deleted since T1, then
it can correctly update it's local copy of the collection to be in sync
with the server. Otherwise, it must retrieve the full collection and
manually calculate the missing deletes in order to sync.
-- m
--
Test driving http://five.sentenc.es/
