On Thu, 2012-09-13 at 16:19 +0600, Ildar Mulyukov wrote: > Hi, Patrick, ppl, > as the list is not overloaded, I'd like to ask a couple of lame > questions. > > 1. SyncML server can work with multiple number of clients, right?
Right. > Is > this true for the SyncEvo server role too? Yes. Each peer config is tied to one SyncML client. You can have as many peer configs as you want. They can (and usually do) share the same databases, but don't have to. One could also define different contexts with disjunct definitions of local databases, then add a clients to that context which has the right data. Or add the clients to a context which has multiple databases and configure the clients to use the database they want via their URI config. > 2. Having SyncEvo capable to act as a server and client, it is possible > to have a local SyncEvo server sync with a remote server, probably > through and intermediate local database with e.g. backend=file ? Yes. Indeed you need a local database for that. SyncEvolution is not a SyncML proxy which forwards traffic from a SyncML client to a SyncML server - I'm not sure such a thing would even make sense. Proxying the HTTP requests would work better. -- 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
