On Wed, 2014-04-09 at 12:55 +0000, Emiliano Heyns wrote: > On 09/04/2014 14:49:22, "Patrick Ohly" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >It's hard to do with the existing Synthesis engine (it expects the data > >stores to really apply changes) and protocols. SyncML has sync anchors > >and could in theory repeat the last sync, but I suspect that many > >implementations will not implement that correctly. libsynthesis does > >(as > >far as I know), but SyncEvolution doesn't. > > > How did Google's Wave and products like CouchDB handle such things? As > they revolve around sync, this ought to be a huge problem for these.
These are closed systems and thus have full control over all sides of the sync and the protocol involved. Therefore it is a different problem whose solution wouldn't work for SyncEvolution. For example, CouchDB assumes that a DB gets created in one place and then gets replicated. You cannot take two independent DBs and merge them (at least as far as I know - I am not a CouchDB expert). The data also cannot be stored in a different format outside of the DB (in particular using the existing PIM storage of a certain system). See also https://syncevolution.org/development/pim-data-synchronization-why-it-so-hard -- 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] https://lists.syncevolution.org/mailman/listinfo/syncevolution
