Patrick wrote:
>We are the server, the phone is the client. Do you mean client here?
Correct.
>Care to explain? I don't see why or where the todo items would be
>rejected.
This is done by synthesis, during subdatastore dispatching, if it failed to
find a corresponding backend, it rejects.
>> And the client will not sending "todo" items too. This works
>> effectively as only syncing
>> "todo" items I think.
>
>Again, I don't see why we would not send "todo" items when the "super"
>data source is active.
This is possible when "super" only has "calendar" as subtype.
(Setting todo as "inactive", there still need some support on this).
>> >The semantic that we export to the user then becomes:
>> > * when you have a virtual data source configured, then activating
>> > any of individual data sources or the virtual data source
>> > includes all data in the virtual data source in the sync session
>> > * all of these sources must use the same sync mode
>> >
>> I would also like to support syncing only calendar or todo, if my above
>comments
>> made sense.
>
>Even if we can get it to work, is it guaranteed that the two peers
>remain in sync?
>I had asked Lukas that on the Synthesis mailing list. The Synthesis
>engine is smart enough to distinguish between temporary and final status
>codes, but a) many servers always sent a 500 status code, regardless
>what their problem was and b) clients do not check the exact status
>code.
>
That maybe the problem... The configuration of 'super', 'calendar' 'todo'
duplicates
a lot, I am thinking we may come up with some kind of sharing config node to
keep
them in sync.
Best Regards,
Congwu
_______________________________________________
SyncEvolution mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.syncevolution.org/listinfo/syncevolution
