On Sat, Jan 08, 2022 at 03:40:41PM +0100, Yuri D'Elia wrote:
Would it be possible to have an equivalent of MaxMessages that applies
to the "far" side?
technically possible, sure. it wouldn't be even particularly hard - it's
just a matter of replacing a bunch of constants with variables. of
course, that would make the source a bit more noisy and the binary a
whee bit bigger and slower.
Maybe by adding a qualifier in the configuration:
MaxMessages count [far|near]
or another directive?
rather "ExpireSide {Far|Near}" - more traditional syntax, and would not
need duplication when MaxAge finally gets added.
speaking of new expiration options, adding expiration by thread would
seem potentially useful.
i do, however, wonder who (besides you, obviously) uses expiration at
all. it's probably the most complex (and consequently costly in terms of
maintenance - see the many related fixes cooking in wip/master-next)
synchronization feature, and yet feels mostly useless from my
perspective.
This seems to be the only option that introduces a functional difference
between the near and far side.
"SyncState *" is the other asymmetry, which would actually speak in
favor of optionally decoupling things.
I've been using near/far exactly in the opposite sense of the meaning,
which is ... weird. It made a lot of sense when using master/slave,
[...]
but you must have had the problem with push/pull already, so you
obviously adjusted your mental model to make it work. you'd eventually
do the same for the new terms, though now the terminology is even more
consistently wrong for you.
one question would be in how far this actually matters. how often do you
have active contact with this? would hiding it behind a wrapper maybe
sidestep it?
_______________________________________________
isync-devel mailing list
isync-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/isync-devel
