Patrick Ohly wrote: > On Sat, 2010-03-27 at 08:33 +0000, David Bremner wrote: >> At the risk of stating the obvious, please consider the effects on >> battery life of any polling process you decide to implement. I'm not an >> expert, but I would worry about any kind of logging activity that might >> spin the disk up.
There is a serious power draw risk involved with automatic updates, but I don't think this aspect is significant. The actual syncing is when the possible problems appear: disk, bluetooth and wireless IO may all be involved at that point. > I agree, the sync-ui should never be forced to poll. None of the D-Bus > messages should result in disk activity, so I'm less worried about > regular status updates sent via D-Bus. > > The exception is that these updates really have to be infrequent enough > to be barely noticable (IMHO every 5 minutes would be okay). The > question to the consumers of such an event then becomes: is this too > coarse to be useful? > > Jussi, what do you think? No, that's not too coarse. An even more silent option is: * GetAutosyncStatus() method that returns next estimated sync time and possible reason/status * AutosyncStatusChanged-signal that is fired when estimated time or reason/status changes. Is there a problem with something like this? Jussi _______________________________________________ SyncEvolution mailing list [email protected] http://lists.syncevolution.org/listinfo/syncevolution
