Hi Morgen, > In the past there was a proposal to have the sharing layer send a > signal to (and wait for) the main thread to commit. This seems > problematic because what if the user is in the middle of editing > something like a note body? Do we want to commit in the middle of > that, or somehow delay the background sync? What if we turn the > problem around and have the main thread in charge of scheduling syncs > instead? It could schedule periodic syncs and also trigger syncs to > happen just after local changes have been made, reducing the time it > takes changes to get published.
I have no objection to the UI view scheduling syncs, but I guess I'd still prefer to have edit sessions and just not sync an item while it has an active edit session (pretend it has a conflict, basically). Does anyone object to the concept of edit sessions? How much work would it take? Sincerely, Jeffrey _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Open Source Applications Foundation "chandler-dev" mailing list http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/chandler-dev
