On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 09:24 am, Stewart Heitmann wrote: > On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 05:47 pm, Mika Raento wrote: > > On Tue, 2005-01-04 at 13:41 +1100, Stewart Heitmann wrote: > > > > > Thus I suggest it would ultimately be better if the sync engine only sent > > > those > > > particular vcard fields to a plugin that it knows the plugin can handle. > > > However this requires each plugin to register the fields they handle with > > > the sync > > > engine on startup. Its a substantial design change so I dont imagine it > > > would > > > go into the 0.8x branch. Perhaps something to consider for 0.90 instead. > > > > I second this; although the ultimate responsibility of data conversion > > is of course on the individual plugin, the need to filter fields is very > > common and should be provided by the framework. This should allow us to > > map the Syncml device-info (capabilities) in a nice way and have a > > chance of syncml actually working in the future. > > > > Of course the choice of what functionality to include in the framework > > is not always clear, and refactoring is the answer rather than huge > > up-front desing. However, we've already seen the need for vcard 1/2/3 > > conversion and field/attribute filtering. > > > > Mika Raento > > > > Mika, I'm happy you understood me and thanks for seconding the idea. > I fear Armin is not in agreement though, but I am hoping he will > come around to it. > > Out of interest, I a wondering if you are actively working on the > sync_vtype_convert stuff at the moment. > Your original post suggested that you were, and I am wondering what > direction you are heading and on which branch you are working. > > I myself only work on the 08X branch, and only within the kdepim > plugin for that matter. However the problems I now encounter with my > plugin are almost all due to inter-plugin interaction (such as I > have already described). > > So far, I have been reluctant to mess with sync engine code as > any change there is likely to affect other plugins adversely. > But ultimately, I believe something will need to be done if we wish > to achieve full inter-operability between plugins. > > I am keeping a "hands-off" approach to the sync engine code for now. > At the moment I just wish to gauge who is working on what. >
-- Stewart Heitmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ------------------------------------------------------- The SF.Net email is sponsored by: Beat the post-holiday blues Get a FREE limited edition SourceForge.net t-shirt from ThinkGeek. It's fun and FREE -- well, almost....http://www.thinkgeek.com/sfshirt _______________________________________________ Multisync-devel mailing list Multisync-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/multisync-devel
