On 02/01/2013 05:08 AM, Matthew Barnes wrote:
On Thu, 2013-01-31 at 20:47 +0100, Milan Crha wrote:
I vote for Tristan's 2), basically because it's the right approach in
client-server architecture, also used in evo-mapi (and maybe in evo-ews,
I do not know). Basically, if client doesn't have anyt
On Thu, 2013-01-31 at 20:47 +0100, Milan Crha wrote:
> I vote for Tristan's 2), basically because it's the right approach in
> client-server architecture, also used in evo-mapi (and maybe in evo-ews,
> I do not know). Basically, if client doesn't have anything it was asked
> for, then it doesn't me
On Thu, 2013-01-31 at 08:11 -0500, Matthew Barnes wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-01-31 at 18:25 +0900, Tristan Van Berkom wrote:
> > I'm not sure what the solution should be exactly, but we
> > should discuss this a bit because the problem space is
> > a little bigger than just the source existing in the
>
On Thu, 2013-01-31 at 18:25 +0900, Tristan Van Berkom wrote:
> I'm not sure what the solution should be exactly, but we
> should discuss this a bit because the problem space is
> a little bigger than just the source existing in the
> client-side before e_source_registry_commit_source_sync()
> retur
On 10/06/2012 09:01 AM, Matthew Barnes wrote:
On Fri, 2012-10-05 at 22:19 +0900, Tristan Van Berkom wrote:
a.) e_source_registry_commit_source_sync() seems not exactly
very sync. I haven't looked into that in detail but
surely the registry server needs to block on something e
