On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 6:52 PM, Dave Cridland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 3) Client says "I have the roster as of this point in time". Server > either says "Here's the changes" or "Here's the whole roster", > depending on whether it can find all deletions. > > This is basically addressing the shortfall of the above, and allows > for a single RTT self-correcting error case. I like this one best, > and it's pretty easy to implement. I like this one, since it always has a backup when no sinchronization is needed. Moreover the server can store only a window of changes, and send the whole roster if the last known by the client is too old > I also have a fondness for modified strictly increasing timestamps, > but implementors need to appreciate that computer clocks go > backwards, so they need to remember to handle odd cases like that by > "letting time catch up" - just using a few ms later than the last > timestamp until the real time is greater than the last timestamp. I wrote timestamps in my other mail, but any strictly growing sequence of number is fine -- Fabio Forno, Ph.D. Bluendo srl http://www.bluendo.com jabber id: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
