On Fri, 2012-03-16 at 13:52 +0100, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-03-16 at 13:00 +0100, Chris Kühl wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Patrick Ohly <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> > > In a nutshell, I think we need to go back to the original std::list and
> > > its brute-force insertion sort. Agreed?
> > >
> >
> > I found it a bit nicer to use the comparison class but if you're not
> > convinced feel free to revert that.
>
> It's nicer, but I am not convinced that it is correct.
[...]
> I'm wondering whether the old approach would be easier:
> * keep the Connection logic inside syncevo-dbus-server
> * schedule a normal SessionResource there
> * use it once it is ready
>
> One downside of this is that Connection needs to parse the incoming
> message, for which it must instantiate libsynthesis. It's linked to
> anyway via libsyncevolution, but not used elsewhere, so long term we
> could get rid of it in syncevo-dbus-server by refactoring the libs if it
> wasn't for this one aspect.
I'm going to experiment with the following changes on a branch:
* restore old work queue (list of sessions)
* run Connection entirely in syncevo-dbus-server, with blocking
sync done in a normal helper session
Krzesimir, you can document and rename the callbacks in parallel. Please
base it on the concurrent-sync-pohly-delayed-dbus branch.
--
Best Regards, Patrick Ohly
The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although
I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way
represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak
on behalf of Intel on this matter.
_______________________________________________
SyncEvolution mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.syncevolution.org/listinfo/syncevolution
