In general, I like the idea of using some form of client-side adapter to insulate the client from protocol/storage changes. You are pushing the SyncableService API and I don't have any reasons to go against it. It seems like a nice adapter.

What would the expectation in agreeing upon SyncableServiceAPI be?  Do we gain actual code portability between implementations, or is it simply a better architecture across clients?

Just to address this: I don't think there's any point in being this concrete. We'll almost certainly use something very like SSA, but bear in mind that Google has some money and tools that we don't, such as having transactional remote storage:

The architecture of the client code is the absolute least of my concerns.
_______________________________________________
Sync-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/sync-dev

Reply via email to